good morning. i'm chris jansing. a historic morning at the supreme court. today, nine justices will rule on two cases that could redefine equality and gay rights in this country. in just minutes, we're expecting decisions on the defense of marriage act, and california's proposition 8. nbc's justice correspondent, pete williams, is standing by. and we will have those decisions right when they happen. take a look now. huge crowds outside the supreme court on both sides of this issue. dozens of people were in line already last night. by this morning, 7:00 a.m., that line stretched down the front steps and wrapped around the corner. we have been hearing people chanting, holding up signs, preparing for both of these decisions. some of them camped out overnight to witness history.

>> we thought this was a -- once in a lifetime opportunity. >> this is about everybody getting the same rights. >> for me, best-case scenario is that doma goes away. that marriage is between two people that love each other. >> i'm hoping they leave prop 8 in place. i'm hoping they leave doma in place. >> up on the front, it says equal justice under law and that's what this really is about. >> so the real question now is, what kind of history will be made here? will this be a day people will remember, like roe v. wade or brown v. the board of education? i have truly an all-star panel. rachel maddow, host of the "rachel maddow show" here, joe green, professor, ken jioshino, president clinton's top adviser, and former president of equality matters. great to have you here.

momentous day, rachel has there been a bigger day for gay rights? >> sometimes you don't know they're coming when they're coming. i'm not sure everyone thought lawrence v texas was going to be what it was. >> ten years ago today. >> hard to know. it is possible the supreme court justices will find a way to sort of split the baby here and come up with a decision that is not as consequence in either direction everyone is expecting. >> we are going to a special report. nbc's pete williams live at the supreme court. >> reporter: the supreme court has just struck down the federal defense of marriage act. this was the law passed by congress in 1996, signed by president clinton, that prevented the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages in the states where they're legal. it's a 5-4 decision, written by justice anthony kennedy. and the interesting thing here

is that the court has said that doma is unconstitutional, as a matter of equal protection. meaning that it's discriminatory. now, the importance of that is, if the supreme court had struck it down on a narrower basis, by saying, for example, that the federal government doesn't have the power to determine what a marriage is, that's a matter for the states. that would have been a very narrow ruling. this is a very broad ruling. if the supreme court here is saying that the federal government can't make distinctions between same-sex and opposite sex couples in terms of what marriage ises the federal government will recognize, this is an opinion that can be used by proponents of same-sex marriage to attack laws in other states. so it's a significant ruling from the supreme court. we're still waiting for the decision on california's proposition 8. but i would say based on the size of this ruling and the size of the descent, it's going to

take the justices a long time to read their opinions from the bench. i would guess the descenders will read their descents, as well. so we've got some period of time to wait here before we get the other decision. but -- >> that is nbc's pete williams. i interrupted you, rachel, just as you were saying that we don't know whether this is going to be a momentous day or not. well now we do. >> now we know. this is the most -- we will have to wait to see the details on it. but first blush from pete's reporting, this is the most consequential way they could have chosen to rule in a pro gay rights way. i defer to the experts on the panel with us. but this is a very big deal ruling and this is a very big deal way to decide it. >> on a very practical basis, what does this mean? >> as a practical matter, it means if a couple is recognized by their state, a same-sex couple is recognized by their state as married, the federal government will accept that definition. so i think the facts are best illuminated by the woman who is a plaintiff in this case, edie windsor. she was with her partner for 44

years. actually, after the oral argument, you mentioned the supreme court. they came down to 44 steps of the supreme court and one of her lawyers said this is one step for every year this couple has been together. so that means that, you know, when her wife passed away, they were next of kin, in the eyes of new york state. but they were legal strangers in the eyes of the federal government and she got hit with a $363,000 estate tax she would not have had to pay. >> she would have paid zero if she was married to a man. >> that is correct. and so now those kinds of penalties are gone, because the federal government must now treat same-sex couples who are married in the eyes of their state the same as opposite sex couples. >> hard to say how huge this is, jamal in the sense we're talking about more than a thousand laws, regulations that will affect same-sex couples. >> it's a much bigger decision than i think a lot of legal experts expected in this case. and as kenji said, there are real consequences here. real money. we're talking about social security benefits, we're talking

about v.a. hospitals, we're talking about burial rights. we're talking about all sorts of laws. and it -- as people said, it relies on equal protection principle, which is i think further than a lot of people thought. people thought maybe it would be a more narrow ruling. but this might well have implications for cases beyond just doma. >> do you think that's true, richard? you were one of the first people who said, frankly, to the president, to barack obama, that he needed to be broader, more forceful on these issues. >> well, it looks like to be a very historic moment. i mean, i'm just seeing the opinion now for the first time. and it's well over 50 pages. so it will take a long time to look at. but, you know, what we had hoped for was a broad ruling, based upon equal protection. not any kind of thing around the margins, not any procedural ruling in the doma case. and if the court, as it appears it has, said that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal protections to the law and some form of heightened

constitutional scrutiny, it will have a big effect not only on couples directly affected today, but it will have a big effect going forward, because this case will be able to be used as precedent to strike down any future anti -- any anti gay laws in the future. i mean, barack obama deserves a lot of credit for this, remember, because it was his justice department which came in and switched sides, in the middle of this case, in the middle of this windsor case. they first defended doma and then they came in and switched sides and said, you know, we have taken a look at this. we too believe this is unconstitutional. and this will be a big day for barack obama, and a big day for that justice department, if, in fact, the court rules and supports their position. because this was very unorthodox, what they did. >> the politics of this are remarkable. remember, when the justice department decided to stop defending this, which was a bold decision on the part of this justice department and this administration, it was the house republicans who stepped in and said, okay, we'll defend it. okay, we'll defend it. and so it ended up being a very political decision about a very judicial matter. and this -- this validates, i

think what the justice department and the obama administration did, which was going out on a limb when they did it. >> and we have been seeing this sea change in america, first of all, the majority of people now believe the same-sex marriage. a large majority believe it was inevitable, it will become the law of the land. and in fact we have we have seen three republican senators who have changed their position. >> yes. >> how much do you think, kenji, public opinion which clearly has made leaps and bounds in recent years affected the justices? >> i think it can't help but affect them. it definitely affects them, but it's hard to qualify or put a number on that. they're not always swayed by public opinion but don't live in a bubble. the fact we have 54% of this country and growing, you know, in favor of same-sex marriage at the state level and then 63% of the country in favor of striking down doma, which is just what happened, so i think that people feel there is an additional insult, right, when a state says

you're married and the federal government won't recognize that, given there is this long tradition. even ordinary americans not versed in law or what have you, understand that kind of -- what justice ginsburg called skim milk marriage is not a good today. now what we're seeing is skim milk marriages are whole milk marriages. >> 77 pages of a main opinion and descent. so a lot to get through. but i'm seeing now that the court, justice kennedy, seems to have set forth a brand new standard, a careful consideration standard. you know, we have heard running up you to this there are notions of heightened scrutiny and strict scrutiny. there seems to be now a -- what i'm seeing very -- from a cursory review, a new standard that he's called careful consideration, when laws like this are at stake. so it may be that the court today is carving out a brand-new standard for sexual orientation discrimination. again, 77 pages, we're going to have to look carefully. but the initial highlights i'm

seeing over the internet about the case seem to suggest that justice kennedy has -- is enunciating a brand new standard. >> i want to bring in evan wilson, founder and president of freedom to marry. this is the only organization that's devoted solely to legalizing gay marriage. good morning, thanks for joining us. and your reaction. >> it's a momentous day for america. it's a momentous day for american families. the court did the right thing today. they got it wrong yesterday. but today was a big one. and what this does is it adds the moral weight of the federal government and in many instances the legal weight of the federal government toward ending the patchwork of discrimination that prevents committed couples in far too many states from sharing in the protections and responsibilities that come with marriage. but what it does mean is those couples who are legally married will now be treated by the federal government as what they are, married. and i look forward to seeing the administration and congress moving swiftly to implement the constitution's command as set forth by the court. >> it is hard, you know, i think, to -- to understand the

breadth of this in many ways. but when you look, as we were talking about -- i'm sorry, let's go back to pete. not yet. as we look -- edie windsor's case and we look at the difference between $363,000 in taxes versus zero, give us those real-life examples of what -- we're going to wait. because we have another report. he's going to read the descent. pete williams now. >> reporter: refers to the prop 8 case. and it suggests -- let me make it very clear. we don't have the proposition 8 ruling yet. but based on what the descenters are saying in the doma case, it appears what everyone predicted is going to happen. that the supreme court will say that the people who brought the prop 8 case to the supreme court had no legal standing. that will mean that same-sex marriage can resume in california. it will be a decision affecting only california. it won't say anything about whether other states have to recognize same-sex marriage. so we have a bit of a prediction here based on the descent.

>> is that what you read into this, kenji? >> i haven't read, so i'm just going off pete's report. one of the things that was predicted was that the court would say, this case may or may not be mare torous. this is a challenge to california's ban on same-sex marriage. you're not the right people to bring it. because like president obama, governor schwarzenegger said he would enforce but not defend. >> they could essentially bring back same-sex marriage to california if that's the case within weeks. >> that's exactly what will happen. i mean, if this -- if the ruling is what pete suggested, it might be, based upon his reading of the dissent, which is a big if, but sounds right. and if the majority in the proposition 8 case rules there was no stand to go bring this lawsuit, to bring this appeal, then same-sex marriage will return to california very quickly in days if not weeks. there may be some litigation around it. around the edges. but the fact that people will be allowed to get married again in

california will be a big, big deal. it is the most important -- biggest state, most populous state. it will add -- it will add a lot of people already who have this right. and listen, you know, if we have a big ruling in doma with a new constitutional standard, and if we have the return of same-sex marriage to california, it will be a big win for the gay rights movement today. and it will look like there is no going back. >> i want to bring in former massachusetts congressman barney frank, the first openly gay congressman and the first to get married. he got married -- i think you're coming up on your first anniversary, congressman. good to see you. congratulations, first of all, on your upcoming anniversary and your reaction to today's ruling. >> well, i have to declare an interest -- jim and i will now get federal legal rights, which is something that i think we're entitled to. for us it wasn't as essential as for a lot of other people not economically as well off.

but i am very happy. and i'm happy as i hear what appears to be the basis for the decision in two ways. first of all, reaffirmation of equal protection. and this really is classic equal protection juris prudence. so the surprise -- the surprise is not that five justices found for it. it is that four justices still want to make those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender an exception to traditional juris prudence. secondly, it is the fact that we as a class are entitled to this. it is very, very important, both specifically for a lot of hard-working people who pay their taxes and haven't been getting the full benefits. and there's one more step towards doing what i think is the most important constitutional mandate we had. our constitution set forward a number of very important, very radical principles for the time. but it excluded a lot of people from the benefit of those -- of those rights. and we have had a series of

efforts in our country to make sure that the people originally excluded were included in all those wonderful phrases of the declaration of independence and the binding clauses of the constitution. and for those of us gay and lesbian today is a major step towards getting there. >> and it has been a major argument of the lawyers on the side of this and just of everyday americans. they felt that if the ruling came down this way, it would be in part, and i'd like to know if you agree, congressman, that the other side simply couldn't prove harm. what is the harm if you and jim decide to be in a loving, committed relationship? >> i have to say that we have encountered in the state of massachusetts and in the state of maine, we split our time. no cases of heterosexual men being so moved by the example of jim and i that they have left their wives. but i would say, this is the way it works. some people object when the courts do it. although i have to say, having stricken yesterday a law that

was reenacted by the congress i served in only a few years ago, i hope none of the conservatives will be so hypocritical as to denounce judicial activism today when an older statute is stricken by the court. this notion of judicial activism. this is a bunch that wanted to undo the health care bill. they are undermining our financial reform or trying to. i don't think they'll succeed by having the judiciary intervene. that argument has no weight whatsoever. but what you have is this. prejudice is ignorance. prejudice is prejudging. it is -- dislike of people based on not knowing them. as more and more of us have been honest about who we are. it's called -- well, we -- we talk about our sexuality, it's called coming out. when straight people talk about their sexuality, it's called talking. so we are now discussing our sexuality, and we have, by our reality, helped defuse the prejudice. and it's been nearly ten years

since massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage. none, literally none, zero of the predictions of negative effects have come true. so this is one more case of reality defeating prejudice. >> i just want to say, and stay with us for a second, congressman, we are learning from pete williams that justice scalia is reading from the bench, so it will be a little while, at least a few minutes, before we get the actual prop 8 ruling. but i know racheled wanted to talk. >> just a clarifying question on this. evan a long time ago had identified the experience of same-sex couples having some recognition here as being like your rights fading in and out like cell phone service as you travel around the country. and that's always struck with me because that has been my experience. you have to know which state you're in as a gay person, the way you don't have to as a straight person in terms of knowing whether or not you are going to be respected. with this decision today, and understanding that we don't yet have the prop 8 case, if there is federal recognition for same-sex marriages, some states

still not recognizing them. if i get married in massachusetts and move to alabama, what rights do i have? can i file my taxes? >> remains to be litigated. that's the $64,000 question. >> you may be able to do that with the federal tax. you will not have alabama rights. that was the case, by the way, with interracial marriage until 1967. if you were an interracial couple, until 1967 in this country, your marriage was recognized in most states by then, but not the state of virginia and a few others. so -- and that's very important. the court is clearly not going to take the case that was brought by david boyce and ted olson to declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage everywhere. and can i put in a plug here for mary benoto, it was her legal strategy and she has done this work. and i wish we could push a button and get all our rights tomorrow. that's never been the way it's worked. you have to work hard legally and politically and socially and

intellectually. and this is a major breakthrough. it is in everything. but it is a good indication that everything is not too far away, because it is a further validation of the sentiment and one good thing leads to another. you will now have, because i think the prop 8 case will be, as you said, about 100 million americans will have the right to same-sex marriage, as i count it up quickly in my head. and once more, that's a big reality that will defeat prejudice. and this movement the is going to go forward. we're not all the way there yet, but this is a major step towards it. >> congressman barney frank, our thanks to you for coming on. and i just want to reset for people who may just be joining us. a major decision. we have been waiting for two. the supreme court ruling that legally married, same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. now, same-sex marriage has been adopted by 12 states and the district of columbia. i'm sorry, say that? okay. yeah. and barney frank is going to stay with us as well. so what happens now in these states that have passed laws

that say they reject same-sex marriage? what happens? >> nothing. actually, under doma. so, i mean, doma, the thing about striking down doma, it doesn't affect any state's right to ban or to allow same-sex marriage. so the fight still remains to be fought in those remaining 38 states. all it means, if a state says that a same-sex couple is married, the federal government will defer and give the 1,138 benefits that accrue to that marriage, you know, to that couple. >> which is going to make for a weird, real-life experience for a lot of couples. it really is. it's not hard to travel to another state in your own country and get married if you're really determined to do it and you have the resources to do it. when you go home and you have federal recognition, you can file your taxes together. the military recognizes the status of your marriage if you are -- one of you is in the military. but your state doesn't. how many people know what the difference is and the practical implications of your marriage that come from the state versus that come from the federal government? nobody knows that in practical life. and we're all now going to have to learn that until this is settled in these 38 states that

now do not acknowledge what the federal government does. it's a strange real-life situation. >> and that's exactly right. i mean, i think the next wave of litigation is going to be someone who has gotten married in a state that allows same-sex marriage, gets all the federal benefits and moves to a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. do they still have access to those federal benefits or not. and that's going to be litigated. >> chris, we're seeing here in the dissent with what justice scalia is reading now. the majority has enunciated a new constitutional standard today for sexual orientation, discriminati discrimination. a new heightened standard, because justice scalia is chiding them for doing so in his dissent and saying they should have applied the old standard, old rational basis standard. and there is, you know, the money quote of this opinion of the majority opinion, comes at the very end, as it obvious often does. and it is very striking, where justice kennedy says the federal statute is invalid, for no

legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those but its the marriage laws sought to protect by seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the fifth amendment. >> yeah. and also from the opinion, as pete was saying, we know, actually, what's happened in the prop 8 case, i think, from this opinion. so i'm going to quote from the opinion, chief justice roberts dissenting. that issue, however, the issue of whether this goes more broadly to guarantee the rights of same-sex couples in all states s not before us in this case. and we hold today that we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the particular context of holdingsworth versus perry. we have to understand that as them saying they didn't reach the merits of that case and therefore kicked this case on procedural grounds. however they did that, california gets flipped. >> so evan wilson, moving forward now. what does that mean for organizations like yours?

freedom to marry's goal, everybody who wants to take on that commitment of marriage should be able to do so, no matter where they live in our country. and all marriages should be equally and legally respected, no matter where people are traveling or working or sent by their employer on vacation. so going to rachel's point, part of the work of freedom to marry and other organizations is going to be to encourage the administration and congress to now take the steps to implement this ruling and make sure that for federal programs and purposes, all couples are treated with respect, whether it comes to taxation or health coverage or family leave or all those protections. and meanwhile, of course, our work is to continue this conversation, persuade more people, bring more states in favor of the freedom to marry, to end this discrimination and then go back before the supreme court in a matter of years, not decades, with more states, more public support, and hopefully some more receptive justices to get the country where it needs to be. >> and in addition to the supreme court, there are huge

crowds outside of a san francisco city hall waiting officially for the decision we think we already know on prop 8. how long until the places where this impacts actually will see it go into effect? >> you mean in california? i mean, in california it could be a number of days. it could be a week. it could be a couple of weeks. but we'll have to hear from governor brown. and from the attorney general of california. both who are supporters of same-sex marriage. and we expect that they will interpret a ruling that the proponents of proposition 8 lack standing to bring the appeal. that that ruling will be interpreted as restoring same-sex marriage rights to california. that is what kind of the smart legal thinking up until now has been. there may be, you know -- there may be some, as i said, some litigation around the margins about it. but i would be very surprised if same-sex couples aren't allowed to be married in california very soon, within a matter of days, if not months. now, the other question on doma is, how quickly will the obama

administration put this law into effect? i mean, there's going to have to be some regulations and a look at various statutes and how doma interconnects with various statutes. marriage is defined differently for different purposes in different statutes. what it means is that the obama administration will, i think, very quickly start to put into effect rules that allow same-sex married couples, if you're in any of the now we think it's going to be 13 states, where same-sex couples can get married. the obama administration will start to put into effect regulations which allow those people to take advantage of federal benefits. most importantly, most dramatically, maybe that will be in the immigration context where it you are a u.s. citizen and married to a foreign national, you could not keep your spouse here in the united states, because you couldn't get a green card for that person. now you will be able to. but you'll also be able to file tax returns, joint tax returns, so forth. and edie windsor, the remarkable

83-year-old widow who brought the defense of marriage act case will get her $300,000 back from the government, which will be quite dramatic. >> barack obama on his twitter feed, today's ruling a historic step forward for #marriageequality, #loveislove. a lot of stories written in the new york papers and in the "san francisco chronicle," "los angeles times" today, rachel, about what the mood -- we do have prop 8. they had done the other decision in between. we're going to wait for pete very quickly. here we go. pete williams has the decision that we think was previewed, but here it is on proposition 8. >> reporter: the supreme court has decided that it cannot take up the challenge to california's proposition 8. it's another 5-4 vote. what this means is that same-sex marriage is now once again legal in the state of california.

it's probably the same lineup, i'm assuming, from the dissenters, that in the doma case. once again, the court's liberals, plus justice kennedy on one side -- actually, i'm told, actually justice kennedy joins the did i -- what the supreme court says here is that the people who tried to appeal this case didn't have the proper legal standing to be before the supreme court. this may strike you as an odd way to decide this case. but this issue of legal standing is a big deal in the federal courts. and the courts are very reluctant to say you have the right to come into court and shake your fist at a law, unless -- unless it personally damages you in some way, and they found that problem. i must say, this is also a great way for the supreme court not to have to decide the issue of same-sex marriage. it gives them an off-ramp. but it has the effect, the same

effect, of allowing it to continue in california without setting any nationwide precedent on what other states have to do. >> pete williams, thank you. the off-ramp, where does it take us, jamal green? >> i would note, looking at what's going on in this prop 8 case, the majority opinion is both to chief justice and justice scalia. hate to be the sort of dark cloud here to sound a note of caution, and this is an absolutely wonderful day for marriage equality. but there will be some litigation about whether or not the entire state of california is bound by the trial court's decision here. and just going back to the doma case, it does announce broad principles of equal protection, it seems. but it also relies on the fact that the state initially says -- so the 13 states that allow marriage equality, the state initially says you have equal rights. and then the federal government comes in and says no you don't for federal purposes. so the decision in doma says,

well, that's what the problem is. that you've been granted equal rights and then the federal government comes in and says, you don't have them anymore. so there's going to be a question of what this means when a state hasn't granted any rights at all. so the 38 or 37 states that haven't granted marriage equality, we're going to have to litigate that and see what happens going forward. >> and kenji, literally, writing a book on prop 8. >> i am indeed. >> so i want to get your analysis of this, and very interesting about the chief justice. >> yeah. i am not actually that surprised by that, given that on standing issues, which is really just a procedural technical issue. that's transsubstantive so doesn't matter whether it's a gay rights case or bankruptcy case or what have you. and is on standing issues, the right wing court has been very, very restrictive with respect to standing. so i'm not surprised there is this cross fertilization. i was in the court for argument for the perry case because i'm writing this book, among other things. and one of the questions the chief asked was, well, even if you don't have standing, somebody else could have

standing like an aggrieveded court who didn't want to hand out licenses to same-sex couples so he was expressing skepticism, even during oral argument that the proponents of this had standing, because these proponents were just ordinary citizens who put this on the ballot. once they put it on the ballot, their interest was essentially gone, right? i mean, so to say they now stand in the shoes of the state when the state refuses to defend the statute is a really sticky wicket, a really complicated position to put ordinary citizens -- >> can i ask kenji what he thinks this means, you're the expert. here is the penultimate sentence, the ninth circuit was without jurisdiction. the case is remanded with instructions to the -- to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. is that what you thought would happen? >> yes, exactly. so if they lacked standing -- if the proponents lack standing to appeal this to the supreme court, they also lacked standing to appeal it from the district court to the ninth circuit. so essentially if they say they don't have standing, it goes all

the way back down to the district court. what will the district court do? it issued the broadest possible ruling and here i would pull against slightly what jamal said earlier. because they sued the right people. they sued the governor of the state. so this is perry versus schwarzenegger. if it goes back down to the district court opinion, he issued this really magnamimous sweeping decision on both right to marry and equal protection grounds. so there is no way, in my view -- it could take a while for this to take root in california but california will be flipped. now, that's 11% of the country. you're from california. >> i am from california. you know, it's been -- the politics of this have been so dramatic, both seeing the fight for it, by these plaintiffs who are -- have very moving personal stories, like edie windsor. but also to see the political fight of it, especially in the american political right. seeing americans really struggle about what future of their party is on this. the bottom line here, let's not be too shy about it. the federal ban on recognizing

same-sex marriages is dead. california's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages is dead. there are 12 states in the country where this is now legal, and the -- political winds on this are now blowing so hard in one direction that the idea that we will go back is almost unimaginable, in any state in the country. we did a -- started a research project on my show looking into places where there is a ban on same-sex marriage. is there political work happening in those states to overturn those bans, put it on the ballot. in every state we went to -- we started with the as, in alaska, arkansas, alabama, everywhere, every single state in the country, there is at least a grass roots movement trying to overturn politically that state's ban. and those states will all now go. it will start with some -- it will be litigation a, lot will be politics. a lot of it will be the republican party deciding where it wants to be on this issue. this is now decided as a nation. the argument is won and it's a matter of where the pieces fall and how long it takes them. >> we mentioned this before. you have three republican senators, portman, kirk,

murkowski in just recent months who have made that change. >> and you've got 53 senators signed on -- i think 53 is the number, as co sponsors as the nondiscrimination act. an employer can't say i'm firing you because you're gay. a number are on board with that. this is the way it than decided as a country, legally, politically and morally and it's just a weigh question how long it takes to sort out. >> that is a key question here. there is a question on the legal side how long it takes and how long it takes the law to sort of follow what clearly public opinion is. and it shows up like so many other things when you talk to members of congress and they say, well, yes, i knew 90% of the country may be for background checks, but come to my congressional district and people say well come to my state in my state that's not the case. but you are seeing that organizing in each and every one of these states. >> organizing and also just personal change. i mean, the thing that is interesting about gay people as a minority is that what happens

is, nobody discovers they are different kind of minority later in life and starts to tell people who didn't previously know. when people come out as gay people, no matter where they live, no matter what kind of family they're in, no matter what kind of occupation they're in, they change the opinion, often, of every single person around them who didn't expect to encounter a gay person in their life and as more and more people come out, more and more people are changed personally on this issue. and the vocal minority who hates the idea of gay rights finds less and less of a receptive audience. and that happens and changes and moves forward every day, every time a gay person in this country comes out to somebody who previously thought they didn't know anybody who was gay. >> as barney frank said, the more people get to know. but also there was another study, and i don't have it in front of me, but i think 70% of people say they know, work with someone who is gay. and to my question was, who are the other 30%? where do they live? and it's a joke, but it's also not a joke. who -- are these -- >> well, they don't knowingly

know. that's a key thing. so all of the postures that people go through in order to not know. if you think back to 1986 barrows versus hardwick case when the justice cast a key deciding vote in this case that upheld sodomy statutes and said to one of thighs colleagues, i don't think i've ever met a homosexual. and he actually met a lot of them and in fact hired a stream of them as his clerks. favorite clerks every year. >> sir, sir, remember me. >> exactly. >> it's a little which came first, the chicken or the egg. and if you live in a place that says this is bad, this is wrong, this is illegal, as a matter of fact, it makes it harder for you to say to your friends. makes it harder for you to say to your family, this is who i am. and harder for them to make that change that so many people have made so quickly. >> and it justifies all sorts of other kinds of discrimination aif your relationship can never be valid, you are a second class citizen. that's challenging to your fellow citizens.

>> joining me, mark takano, the first openly gay person of color in congress. good morning outside the supreme court first -- even before i get your reaction, what is the scene like out there? what's it feel like there? >> well, it's jubilation, exhilaration, every happy word that i can think. it's -- i was in the midst of when the they announced the decision, and the crowd around us was just going wild. >> was it what you expected or just what you hoped for? >> it was what i hoped for. i haven't seen the fine prohibit of the decision. my chief of staff told me it was a decision based on equal protection clause. that makes me more hopeful. so we're going to have to pull this decision apart to understand exactly what it means. but certainly it -- we are -- there's no doubt that this has been a step forward for equality and freedom. >> it is very interesting that the majority of your constituents in riverside,

california passed prop 8. and to the point of our conversation, do you sense a change? >> i do sense a change. just four years after prop 8 passed in 2008, my constituents elected me, the first openly gay person from the state of california. i believe the constituents of my particular district, and indeed my whole county, have moved forward on this issue. it's really interesting. governor schwarzenegger refused to defend proposition 8. so did governor brown and attorney general kamala harris. it's ironic that my county, riverside county, elected me as a kind of counterweight. i believe the people of my county wanted to stand on the right side of history. >> you know, we were talking about what some of the newspapers were saying. and somebody wrote this morning that you will be able to go to

the gay pride parades that are going to be happening this weekend in places like san francisco and new york, not knowing what the decisions were, but be able to judge justifi fr the mood at those gatherings what they had been. what do you imagine this weekend is going to be like in a lot of cities around america, congressman? >> well, i will be in san francisco this weekend. and i imagine there will be dancing in the streets. i imagine there will be dancing in the streets tonight here in washington and every city across this country. i know that people are -- were bracing themselves for disappointment. but tonight there is going to be da dancing in the streets, just shouts and cries and jubilation. >> we are seeing actually on the other side of the screen from you, and there we're taking it full, the celebration that is going on at city hall in san francisco. and we have been talking here, congressman, about how quickly it's likely that gay marriage will be able to resume in your state. do you have a sense of that?

>> well, i imagine that some forward-thinking clerks in california will start issuing marriage licenses today. >> wow, that's really something. today, he said. i don't think anybody -- i don't have -- haven't heard anybody predict that. but now that you think of it, it's probably likely the case. i mean, it's interesting -- >> well, i challenge -- i challenge clerks in california to do so. to take that bold step as faith. >> congressman mark takano. we appreciate it. and pete williams, you have tom goldstein. >> i do. i want to start by, tom, asking you, let's talk about the two decisions, first of all. very different basis. let me ask you, number one, are these -- are these decisions today about gay rights? >> they are about gay rights in

the historic sense of it. the supreme court did not announce, for example, there is a right to same-sex marriage. it did not touch that question. it did not announce a broad standard for strict constitutional scrutiny of laws that might be set to discriminate against homosexuals. instead what it said is much narrower but still important. that is, if a state wants to recognize a same-sex union, then disparaging that choice, treating that marriage like it's not a real marriage, does violate equal protection. and so as a matter of constitutional law, this does remain a question for the states. but i think that gay rights advocates, the lgbt community will look at this and see it as validation of a basic point their marriages are equal. >> does it strike you as odd the supreme court said look, federal government, you have to respect what the states say the definition of marriage is. except when it comes to california where we're not going to respect what the 52% of the people said in voting for prop 8. >> well, you can tell in 2-5-4 rulings, the supreme court is

very closely divided here. and what it did in the proposition 8 case, refused to decide anything. that decision is a narrow one. it said we look at the people in this case who are appealing, trying to take it from the trial judge's ruling that prop 8 is unconstitutional to court of appeals and on to us. and they don't have the right to proceed in the federal courts. so we're not saying anything. one way or the other about proposition 8. we're washing our hands of the case and allowing the trial judge's decision to stand. >> so tommy, what is your sense of when the state of california would be legally entitled to begin issuing same-sex marriages licenses? i ask that question because normally when the supreme court issues an opinion like this, that's not the end of the day. there's some behind the scenes things that happen. the court officially sends its ruling down. everybody waits as they they don't know what's going to happen until they get it. as a practical matter, can the state do whatever it wants now? >> let's talk about it in practical terms as you ask and then legal terms. as a practical matter, the answer is yes. and that is the supreme court

has ruled. it has gotten out of the way of doing anything that might uphold proposition 8, and therefore reinstate california's ban on same-sex marriage, which had been in effect, i guess, because there had been the rulings against proposition 8 had been put on hold by the lower court. so before today, proposition 8 stood, because of the possibility the supreme court would uphold it. that possibility is now gone. and so the governor of california, individual court clerks, can make the judgment, look, i see that trial judge's ruling, which is in effect today, saying that prop 8 is unconstitutional. i agree with that. and i'm going start issuing these licenses. now -- >> reporter: and who is going to stop them. >> who is going to stop them. there may be court clerks that disagree and tusel with the governor. if you are a same-sex couple in california, you are going to be able to find a court clerk very promptly that is going to be willing to give you a wedding license, a marriage certificate. as a purely technical question, the supreme court today sent instructions back down to the court of appeals saying throw out the appeal.

so there are some legal process technically to go. but it's meaningless. as a practical matter today, the door is open for those who believe prop 8 is unconstitutional. the governor, the court clerks, to say we now are recognizing same-sex marriage. >> questions? >> let me ask you to hold. and we want to go over to evan and rachel, you and i were talking off-mic whether or not it's a good idea just for people to go to their court clerk and knock on the door and say hey. >> what tom goldstein was saying and the congressman, he challenges california clerks to today go ahead and start issuing marriages. evan, we have seen california local officials move forward on marriage ahead of their state in the past. is it a good idea, strategically? >> look, people are very eager, very impatient. couples want to get married. they want their kids to see them get married, that he want their parents to dance at their weddings. a day, a week, whatever it's going to take in the next little bit to finish the job here in california, we have won the freedom to marry in california. and people shouldn't be worrying

about whether it's today or tomorrow. but let's really look at what happened today. what happened today was, number one, the court has now restored the freedom to marry in california. that means a third of americans now live in a state where gay people share in the freedom to marry. adding enormous momentum to bringing the country to where it needs to be. and the other very big thing that happened today was the federal government under the command of the constitution as reflected in the supreme court has now gone from the number-one discriminator against gay people to being on the side of treating all americans, including gay people, with liberty and justice for all. this is huge, it's big. we can celebrate that tomorrow, next week, within the next few days, we'll celebrate our weddings. and that's the way it should be. >> and people williams, while we still have you, is this it? these two rulings. are there any other major cases out there on gay marriage before the supreme court that could come before the supreme court next term?

>> reporter: no. to be clear, and by the way, you're -- we don't normally have a musical accompaniment but it's the gay men's chorus of washington singing right now. that's it for this supreme court term. it's now decided all the remaining cases. and it looks to me like standing on the steps are the couples that brought this lawsuit originally from california. along with who -- do i see their lawyer? but that's what the cheer was that just went up here. but no, there are no -- there are no cases like this in the pipeline. and really, what we have today is the intersection of two differing legal theories about the best way to move things forward. you had this case that -- that the supreme court took today. there were, what, five or six other similar attacks on the defense of marriage law that had percolated up around the country.

they all headed to the supreme court at once. the supreme court reached out and chose to take this one, which was a challenge brought by a woman in new york named edie windsor, whose partner died, the irs said, you know, we had this federal defense of marriage act, we can't recognize your marriage. you owe us $300,000. >> and we see -- >> she sued. she is the victor today. >> we see david boyce there, as well, who had this very interesting partnership with someone on the very different side of the political aisle, ted olson. >> ted olson, his adversary in bush v. gore, with a shared personal belief in the cause they were fighting for here, and, of course, their very formidable team when they're together rather than opposite each other. i have a question might ask to pete and tom there. if couples now sue who got married in massachusetts or iowa or someplace that recognizes it, their marriage is now recognized, will be recognized federally. if those -- if those couples move to someplace like alabama or utah where their marriage is

not recognized and they sue for rights in the new state that they are in, is there anything in today's rulings that gives us a sense of what the precedent might be or how difficult that lawsuit might be for those couples to win to try to turn over even the state's that don't currently recognize those rights? >> it's my great privilege to be here this morning with the plaintiff's legal team and founding board members of the american foundation for equal rights. speaking first will be david boyes. >> this is a great day for america. ten years ago today, united states supreme court in lawrence against texas took the first important step to guaranteeing that all americans, regardless of sexual orientation, or equal citizens under the law. today, the united states supreme

court in two important decisions brings us that much closer to true equality. in the decision striking as unconstitutional, the so-called doma or defense of marriage case, the united states supreme court held that there was no purpose for depriving gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry the person they love. there was no legitimate justification for that. as justice scalia noted, that holding, that principle, guarantees the right of every individual in every state to marriage equality. in the california case, the supreme court held that the proponents of proposition 8 did not have standing. what that means is that in that

case, the supreme court could not reach the merits. but everything that the supreme court said in the defense of marriage opinion where they did reach the merits, demonstrates that when that case finally does come to the united states supreme court on the merits, marriage equality will be the law throughout this land. our plaintiffs now getting to back to california and together with every other citizen of california marry the person they love. and the next step is to translate the promise that was in lawrence and that was reaffirmed today in the doma case that every citizen in every state has the right to marry the person that they love.

the supreme court's decision on standing is important for another reason. when we started out in this case, we said we were going to prove three things. we were going to prove that marriage was a fundamental right. and the other side accepted that. we said second we were going to prove that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry the person they love seriously harmed them and seriously harmed the children they were raising. and even the opponents agreed with that. and third we said we were going to prove that allowing everyone to marry the person they loved, regardless of sexual orientation, did not, could not harm anyone. and not only did the proponents on cross-examination have to accept that, but today the

united states supreme court said as much, because they said the proponents have no concrete injury. they cannot point to anything that harms them, because these two loving couples and couples like them throughout california are now going to be able to get married. and so this is a wonderful day for our plaintiffs. it's a wonderful day for everyone around this country and in california in particular that wants to be able to marry the person they love. but it's a wonderful day for america. because we have now taken this country another important step towards guaranteeing the promise that is in our constitution, in our declaration of independence, that all people are created equal, that all people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. this is a great day. we thank the supreme court. we thank all of you.

and perhaps most important, we thank all of the people who have devoted so much to this battle over so many decades. people who did it at a time when it was not as easy as it was for ted olson and myself to go into court. the only thing i regret today is that my friend and colleague, ted olson, can't be here. he has been a leader in this battle for the last four years. he is unfortunately today in another court, in another part of the country, arguing another case. but his spirit is here. and he will be with me tonight, and we will celebrate. because this is a victory not just for us, not just for the plaintiffs, not even just for the people who have worked for this so many decades. but for all americans. thank you. we'll now have comments from chris perry and sandy sear, plaintiffs in the case.

>> today is a great day for american children and families. sandy and i want to say how happy we are. not only to be able to return to california and finally get married, but to be able to say to the children in california, no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, no matter what family you're in, you are equal. you are as good as your friends' parents and as your friends. we believe from the very beginning that the importance of this case was to send a message to the children of this country that you are just as good as everybody else, no matter who you love, no matter who your parents love. and today we can go back to california and say to our own children, all four of our boys, your family is just as good as everybody else's family. we love you as much as anybody else's parents love their kids. and we're going to be equal. now, we will be married and we will be equal to every other

family in california. thank you. >> you know, today we also want to say thank you to all of you. thank you to our supporters, thank you to our amazing lawyers. thank you to the constitution and thank you to justice that was served today in this court. it was an amazing day. we thank the justices for overturning doma. it's so, so important for us and for all families. and we thank the justices for letting us get married in california. but that's not enough. it's got to go nationwide. and we can't wait for that day. it's not just about us. it's about kids in the south, it's about kids in texas. and it's about kids everywhere. and we really, really want to take this fight and take it all the way and get equality for everyone in this entire country. thank you all. it's been a pleasure and an honor to represent you. we'll now hear from jeff zalittlo and tom cotami, also

plaintiffs in the case. >> wow. i don't know these. our desire to do something and get involved in this case, to be plaintiffs, was very important to us. perry changed the conversation. the altered the game. it created a ground swell of momentum and passion that brought us here to the supreme court today. today, the court said that i am more equal, that we are more equal. our love is just like our parents and our grandparents. and that any children that we may have in the future will be more secure. i look forward to growing old with the man i love. our desire to marry has only deepened the last four years, as has our love and commitment to one another. we look forward to using the words "married" and "husband" because those words do matter. they are important. i said it in my testimony in

court. if they weren't important, we wouldn't be standing here today. i would like to give special thanks to ted and david. and the entire legal team. but ted and david specifically. because their passion for equality is only trumped by the size of their heart. i would like to thank kris and sandy for taking this ride with us, to chad griffin for his amazing strategic vision. to adam and the entire team at the american foundation for equal rights. and for the support that we have received from countless people that we don't even know but who will benefit just as profoundly from this ruling today. thank you very much. today is a great day to be an american. >> i'm not sure i can add anything after those three great statements, four, including our amazing lawyer. today is a great day. we entered this building and we always see those words.

equal justice under the law. and today we're closer to that equality. we're lucky and we know that the fight continues across this country. we cannot forget our lgbt brothers and sisters that are in states that still discriminate against them. and we will not allow it. we will continue the fight until all of us are equal. prop 8 did one thing. it really helped us turn anger into action. it led to the foundation, the american foundation for equal rights. it led to this case and to today's victory, as well. and we stand on the shoulders of so many people that came before us, people that risked their lives to stand up and be who they are. they gave us the legs to it stand up on today. they gave us the momentum to run with and the voice to speak loudly and say proudly that we are gay. we are american. and we will not be treated like second-class citizens. so although we celebrate today,

we work to make sure that everyone like jeff and i and kris and sandy, we just want to get married because it's the natural next step in our relationship. we want to join the institution of marriage not to take anything away, but to strengthen it. and to live up to its ideals. so today is a good day. it's the day i finally get to look at the man that i love and finally say will you please marry me. >> we'll now hear from co founder and current president of the human rights campaign, chad griffin. >> thank you very much, adam. and thanks to these incredible plaintiffs. and to the legal team led by ted olson and david boies. what a magnificent job they have done representing thousands upon thousands of people in california and ultimately around this country.

you know, thanks to these historic decisions today, we are one step closer -- >> so two historic decisions from the supreme court. one that says if you are legally married and a gay couple, you get the same federal benefits as any other married couple. the second that could very quickly allow gay couples to marry in the state of california, once again. rachel maddow, we heard a word here from the last speaker that i think is critical. momentum. >> yeah. >> does this give momentum to those in other states who are still without the right to marry? >> undoubtedly. it is impossible to sustain the idea that your marriage is recognized federally and not in your state. it's too incoherent to survive. so even if you ignore the political momentum, the legal momentum is undeniable. we have reached the tipping point in public opinion. we have now gone over and it will not go back. so david boies talking very

eloquently, always so eloquent, about how the next thing that will happen is that this needs to be recognized nationwide. you saw kris perry, one of the plaintiffs in the prop 8 decision saying this is for our kids, for us to be able to tell them we are married, we are equal, we are just like any other family. but this is also for kids in the south. this is also for kids in texas. this is for kids everywhere. this is the whole country. that is something that will now happen, there will need to be additional work done. but this path has been hacked through the jung and he will now it's just the matter of other people following. >> and it is about the law, of course. but there is also a level of emotion we have seen. we heard people talking about the celebrations, we have heard a proposal, something that doesn't happen on our air every day. and we have seen a genuine outpouring here. and it's not just an outpouring, obviously, for the couples who now, like this couple will be able to marry. but for their friends. and for their families who have seen them not be treated on an equal basis. >> to see people -- and what they are asking for is for their private relationshi