night, now it is time for "the last word" the lawrence o'donnell. >> putin still blocking any kind of action. >> is he playing a game, was he serious? >> i was able to get a sense of his soul. >> the memory of iraq resulted in a narrower authorization of force. >> the senate foreign relations committee will vote on a resolution. >> i don't see a clear-cut,

compelling american interest. >> this will come down to the house gop. >> hearing testimony from john kerry and chuck hagel. >> the administration's policy doesn't build confidence. >> this is beyond republican and democrat. >> i have yet to hear concrete things of what the world is doing. >> i do, however, have serious concerns. >> i have many questions. >> what are our interests there? >> first of all, the world set a red line, i did not set a red line. >> president obama says he retains the right to use force. >> we'll talk about red line, at this critical moment for u.s. foreign policy. the resolution authorizing military action in syria was approved by the senate foreign relations committee today by a vote of 10-7, with one senator voting present. the resolution would limit any military strikes to 60 days with the possibility of a 30-day extension.

i would expressly ban the use of ground troops. the resolution also includes wording offered by john mccain that would explicitly change the policy as to making the conditions for a policy. john mccain was joined by two others, tennessee's bob corker, two democrats voted against it, chris murphy and tom udall, the newest member markey voted present, later explaining he needed more time to view all the classified materials before i make the decision on something as important as authorizing the use of military force. in yesterday's hearing, senator markey wondered why we are not waiting for the results of the u.n.'s weapon's inspectors

before authorizing the use of force. and senator markey did not get a reassuring answer to this important question. >> are you concerned in any way that a strike by the united states could increase the amount of military assistance that russia, regarding the syrian regime? >> it could, senator. i mean, there is some indication that they have assured the regime that if we destroy something, they can replace it. >> the two aspiring republican candidates on the committee, senators marco rubio and senator rand paul voted against the resolution. here is rand paul just before the vote. >> i don't see a compelling american interest, i see a horrible tragedy but i don't see that our involvement will lessen the tragedy. i think it may well make it worse. >> the white house commended the senate for moving quickly across

party lines and in our national security. the administration continued to make the case for the action in syria, this time before the house foreign affairs committee. >> the risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting. if we don't take a stand here today, i guarantee you we are more likely to face far greater risks to our security and a far greater likelihood of conflict that demands our action in the future. >> and syria dominated president obama's press conference today in stockholm, with sweden's prime minister. >> first of all, i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line, the world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are used, and passed a treaty even when the countries are engaged in war.

when i said in a press conference that my -- calculus of what is happening in syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, i didn't just pluck that out of thin air. my credibility is not on the line. the international community's credibility is on the line. and america and congress's correct is on the line, because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. >> joining me now, msnbc's krystal ball and steve kornacki. i want to listen to what president obama said in that press conference today, responding to the very important question of what he will do if congress does not approve the resolution.

>> i believe congress will approve it. >> krystal, that is it. that is the answer to what he will do. in other words, he just refused to answer that question. he just glossed over it with the optimism of "i think they will approve it". >> yes, and i think ultimately they will approve it. part of the noise that is coming from the republicans, they have to be skeptical of anything the president does. but i think it would be very difficult for the president, although he reserved the right and he says that he does not think it is constitutional li required for him to go through congress. i think it would be very difficult if this authorization is not given to him through congress, to go ahead with a strike. i think it would be incredibly unpopular if congress did not go along with him. >> steve kornacki, ed markey today personified the argument with the house themselves.

he was not going to vote today. it didn't matter, clearly there was a big enough margin where the vote didn't matter. and so he held off. my suspicion was he was looking for ways to support the administration, getting very dissatisfactory answers. so he is waiting for that floor vote on the senate. and i think house members are also taking their time coming to a decision on this. >> yeah, no, i think his comments were interesting in particular, markey and ed go back decades, as soon as ed markey got in the race last december, john kerry endorsed him right away. one of the reasons he passed the senate quickly. the other reasons he is deliberating on the vote, saying i'm not going to vote yet, i'm not certain yet. john kerry has not made a strong

enough case yet. the only thing i think to keep in mind with ed markey, again, he is probably safe in terms of re-election but is up for a full term in 2014. when you talk about the house and the full senate, you will talk about the voters. right now, the polling seems to weigh more and more against. that will weigh on their minds, too. >> in a case like senator markey, what you're seeing is one of the problems of modern politics where his predecessor john kerry got in trouble for his famous line "i voted for it before i voted against it." and many house members would vote for things before they would against, is because of the world that they lived in. that has changed. and so i think what markey was thinking is i may be voting for

this, but i cannot vote for this today. i don't want to vote no today and then vote yes, sir in the future. so krystal he leaves himself in the position where he won't have to actually change a vote when he votes on the senate floor. >> right, i think that vote of present represents how conflicted a lot of democrats feel. >> krystal, i think a lot of their constituents. he speaks very much for democratic voters out there who are supporters of president obama. who wants to support the president, but can't yet or may not be able to. >> who want to support the president or who are inclined to act if there is a true reason for intervention but have not been sold on that case. this president, to his credit, has not really launched the emotional appeal that say george w. bush would have. he laid out what he thinks is the best case for military action.

and it is very difficult to get people to go along with a rational case for military action. but you're absolutely right. this is a very conflicting circumstance for democrats, not just politicians, but democrats who like this president, trust this president but are generally wary of getting involved in entanglements. >> i think this shifts away from the senate and the house. it is tough to read where they will fall in the vote. the giveaway to me was rand paul saying hey, i'm giving up on the senate. none of this talk of filibustering on the senate. if we're going to stop this, this talk, where congress could reemerge on this, where you could find much more bipartisanship in the house, the republicans will be opposed to anything that has democratic or obama fingerprints on it. the burden will be to get that through if that pattern prevails again.

>> well, krystal, it was interesting to see rand paul throw in the towel, because according to the vote we saw today in the senate foreign relations committee, this was a filibuster on the floor, meaning that was not better than a 60-40 vote in the committee in terms of what it would represent in the floor. and rand paul, if he wanted to, it seems he could easily lead a much more than a 40 opposition vote on this, and tie it up. but he clearly has decided he is not going to do that, like steve said. and he is trying to throw all the burden on the house of representatives to get what he wants. >> and he sees he could potentially slow down the process, but ultimately that authorization is likely to pass through the senate.

and i think the house -- it is going to be interesting to watch how this goes. obviously, the republican members have to be seen as being very critical of the republicans. there was an interesting op-ed article, saying those who are supporting a strike in syria, basically they laid out the argument saying here is how tough we were on obama, here is the case. by the way, we reserve the right to be critical of obama afterwards. so are there going to be republicans who adopt that way, or are they going to find constituents who are ultimately opposed, and who would vote down anything this president wants to do in syria. >> krystal ball, and steve kornacki, thank you for joining us tonight. coming up, three members of the house committee who question the secretary of state and secretary of defense today. and later, why is using chemical weapons crossing the line?

why do we think that it is worse to die from chemical weapons than it is to die from bullets or from bombs that rip bodies apart? and in the rewrite tonight, a remarkable, truly remarkable must-see video. a politician bravely and eloquently facing down the opposition to same-sex marriage. how to handle the tough question, coming up. with diabetes, it's tough to keep life balanced. i don't always have time to eat like i should. that's why i like glucerna shakes. they have slowly digestible carbs to help minimize blood sugar spikes. [ male announcer ] glucerna. helping people with diabetes find balance. but you had to leave rightce to now, would you go? world, man: 'oh i can't go tonight' woman: 'i can't.' hero : that's what expedia asked me. host: book the flight but you have to go right now. hero: (laughs) and i just go?

this is for real right? this is for real? i always said one day i'd go to china, just never thought it'd be today. anncr: we're giving away a trip every day. download the expedia app and your next trip could be on us. expedia, find yours.

as many as seven million men, women, and children have been displaced by fighting since the war in syria began. 2 million of them have actually left the country. unicef is assisting the refugees wherever they can. they sent 100 tons of supplies to the region of iraq where 200,000 syrians are living, 20 thousand of them are children. if you would like to contribute

to the fun you can find the link on our facebook page. and casting the vote on the syrian intervention, three members of the foreign affairs committee will join me next. [ male announcer ] what's important to you? at humana, our medicare agents sit down with you and ask. hanging out with this guy. he's just the love of my life. [ male announcer ] getting to know you is how we help you choose the humana medicare plan that works best for you. mi familia. ♪ [ male announcer ] we want to help you achieve your best health, so you can keep doing the things that are important to you. keeping up with them. i love it!

[ male announcer ] helping you -- now that's what's important to us. the team of dempsey and hagel made their case for the intervention into syria before the house foreign affairs committee. >> some have tried to suggest that the debate we're having today about this president's red line.

that this is about president obama's red line. let me make it as clear as i can to all of you. that is just not true. this is about the world's red line. it is about humanity's red line, a line that anyone with a conscience should draw. this debate, i might remind you, is about congress's red line. >> the opponents to the intervention of syria believe it is up to the house of representatives to defeat the resolution. >> i think they will win in the senate. the only chance of what i consider to be stopping it, will be in the house. >> joining me, all members of the house foreign affairs committee. congressman meeks, how are you going to vote on this resolution in the committee? >> well, as of today, i can't tell you.

i am undecided. i am somewhat like mr. markey in that i have a lot more information to get in. i have to sit down at some more classified hearings and hear some more information. but i am tremendously concerned because i don't believe we need to strike in a unilateral basis, if the international violations of chemical weapons has been violated, it should be an international response. and right now i don't see an international response. >> congressman, how will you vote? >> well, it really depends on what the resolution is -- i cannot defeat that resolution. >> have you seen the wording that has been changed by the senate and is that more appealing to you? >> actually, i have introduced my own resolution with chris van hollen, that more narrowly constricts the resolution to attack.

>> how will you vote on this? >> lawrence, i'm going to vote a definite no. you talk about attacking a sovereign country that didn't attack the united states of america, i can't support that. >> and what is your reaction to rand paul who does have the power to filibuster this in the senate. and probably would have the votes based on what we just saw in the foreign relations committee, it looks about 40% of the senate will vote against us anyway. but rand paul wants to leave it all to you in the house of representatives to try to stop this thing he wants to stop. what is your reaction to that, congressman yoho? >> i don't know how to take that. i am sure he has a plan, but in the house, i can talk for myself, i can't speak for anybody else, but i'm a definite no on this. >> congressman, i want your

opinion, i know you are voting no. but i want you to consider the other side of the case for a moment. and in the testimony you heard today, what is the most persuasive thing that the administration said today that probably could get them some votes in that room. and i know your vote is not up for grabs. >> right, to me, i did not hear anything that swayed me. i went to a briefing yesterday. that did not sway me. i think there are too many ifs in this, and too many unverified facts for me to come out and change me. and i think other people will feel the same way. if you look at the cw agreement signed by 189 nations, i want to know where the other 188 nations. and as the congressman said, where are they coming to the table? i have not seen that. and we have a long way to go to convince me differently. >> congressman meeks, to you, undecided, what were the things

that you heard in the hearing today that you found most compelling in one direction or the other? >> well, i think that what is compelling is the fact that it seems -- and i have not seen any evidence to repute, that clearly in this instance chemical weapons were utilized. and that it was utilized by the assad regime. there is no issue, there is no question about that. i have not heard anything that violates that finding. and the secretary said that is beyond a reasonable doubt. but on the other side of that, when asked specifically who will -- also not just stand and watch the strike or stand and just say that they're against what was done, who will stand with us and be able to put militarily, who will be with us? and if we're not by ourselves, that was not answered. and so those are the two issues that i have right now.

so who is with us? because i think if not knowing who that is, and if the international community is not with us, i think that the international credibility is at stake. not the united states. because it means that the north koreans of the world will say that somebody could utilize a weapon of mass destruction or chemical weapon and the international community will stay on the sideline. it needs to be a multi-lateral effort against this international violation. >> congressman connelly, can you make the case here to congressman meeks for why you would like his support on the version of the resolution that you are working on? >> yes, i think the overhang of iraq is profound. we were given shoddy and misused intelligence in some cases, a fabricated intelligence to justify the move into another country. and i think everybody feels burned by that experience. that is not the case here. we do not have a case of a

president wanting to invade another country. we do not have shoddy intelligence, as greg said. i think that is not in question, and i think the standard we set, i don't think it is the only time the united states gets militarily involved in a situation, including limited strikes with tomahawk missiles, not troops on the ground, is when our direct security is threatened. that is the 1930s standards. we have a responsibility to uphold international law. if we do not act in a limited fashion, only with respect to chemical weapons, i guarantee you, bashar al-assad will use them again. and we will be condemning thousands of lives to a terrible death because we did not act to uphold, our values and standards, that is what got me, lawrence.

i don't want to get involved in another international conflict, we're trying to take ourselves out of two, one of which we never should have been involved in. but we should not stand by and let the crisis go by without accepting the consequences and responsibility of doing nothing. and that will be profound, with respect to iran and other bad actors in the region who are watching very carefully what we do or don't do in the house of representatives. >> let's watch this exchange with congressman marino and secretary hagel. >> regardless of how of the minimization of intervention, american military personnel will die. and this, i cannot accept. soldiers coming home to forms, losing limbs, is not acceptable to me. and therefore, i cannot and will not vote for this intervention in syria. >> this specifically notes no

boots on the ground, this -- >> i have heard -- >> congressman yoho, explain your colleague's refusal to believe the wording of the resolution as limiting -- it says specifically that there will be no boots on the ground. and yet, that is not -- marino is not the only member who seems to think that that wording is meaningless, for some reason. >> well, i think like jerry pointed out, there is a lot of vagueness in the resolution the way it is written. and also, secretary kerry yesterday said that he could not guarantee there would not be boots on the ground, if in fact we did go in. a military strike alone will not get these weapons. and if they fall out of the hands, i don't know if you can call anybody the good guy in there. but if they fall out of the hands of the control of the assad regime. who is going to get them. and he said if we lost control of them, he could not guarantee troops would not be on the

ground. he came back and recanted that today. we have a long way to go. but as far as the international community, the fact of this, i don't think there was a question that sarin gas was used. that is going to come out by the u.n. the question is who used that. one of the briefings i was at, they were piecemealing together a plausible explanation. and i asked the guy, i said this reminds me of 2002 when we're doing the same thing, and colin powell was selling it to the american people, nodding his head in the affirmative, saying i agree. there is too much uncertainty, is it more -- i think it is horrible, a terrible thing to do. but what about the other 800,000 people who have been killed, i think it is horrible, too. and i think this needs to be brought to a close and done diplomatically, and america needs to do that and change the foreign policy that has happened

over the last 30 years. >> that all sounds like it is all the same. it is not. we have something called the convention banning the use of these weapons. the international community for 100 years says this is different. this, you cannot do. and that is what makes those steps different. and that is what makes the international legal situation different, we can't ignore that. >> that is why we need the international community. >> okay, we'll have more on that point later in the show, congressman ted yoho, connelly, and meeks. >> thank you for being here. coming up, what does make a death caused by chemical weapons so much worse than the death caused by a bomb or a bullet? and, donald rumsfeld, and the

use of chemical weapons, he has a lot to say about syria. ♪ [ male announcer ] over the last 100 years, tennis has gotten a lot less dainty, rackets less splintery, courts more surfacey. technology made the game a whole lot faster and awesomer. it's kind of like how esurance used technology to build a car insurance company for the modern world. advantage, you. let's give it up for the modern world. [ crowd cheering ] [ male announcer ] or...that works.

esurance. proud sponsor of the u.s. open. check out esurance on facebook. bjorn earns unlimited rewards for his small business. take these bags to room 12 please. [ garth ] bjorn's small business earns double miles on every purchase every day. produce delivery. [ bjorn ] just put it on my spark card. [ garth ] why settle for less? ahh, oh! [ garth ] great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. here's your wake up call. [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase every day. what's in your wallet? [ crows ] now where's the snooze button?

in the spotlight tonight, the iraq war still hangs over the debate over intervention in syria. >> looming over this debate, time and time again has been the spectre of iraq, most recently the uk parliament, many members cited the failure of intelligence leading up to iraq as the reason that they won't take action now in syria. because they don't trust the u.s. intelligence, do you personally take any responsibility for that or feel any responsibility for that? >> well, i think that the intelligence community turned out to be wrong, and the presentation made by secretary

of state colin powell proved out to be wrong. on the other hand, you had a brutal dictator in iraq who had used chemical weapons against his own people, used them against his neighbors, rebuffed 17 resolutions, and president bush got to the congress and got their support, and got the support of the u.n., and fashioned a very large coalition. so it seems to me that all the appropriate steps were taken. and the congress, a democratic congress voted for regime change in iraq. >> joining me now is msnbc contributor patrick murphy, a former congressman from pennsylvania who was the first iraq war veteran to serve in congress. patrick i want to put up on the screen a picture of rumsfeld in an earlier version of his job. there he is, shaking hands with saddam hussein at the very time that saddam hussein was using chemical weapons. and then there is rumsfeld today, on "the today show,"

complaining about saddam hussein using chemical weapons. that is one of the reasons we had to take him out. rumsfeld, of course, knew at the time that saddam was using chemical weapons and they hung in there with him then. it is just an amazing thing to watch rumsfeld to decide this is the moment to come out here and be one of our guides into the discussion of syria. >> yeah, lawrence, you would think he would have the decency to keep his mouth shut, frankly. here is a guy when he worked for president reagan, when saddam used chemical weapons in the '80s, saddam used chemical weapons against his people in the early '90s, and now he says look, obama should do something, and go big. basically we should have boots on the ground, so more of our sons and daughters will lose their lives over there. lawrence, as you know, i lost 19 of my men in 2003 and 2004. america, at its core, is the

reluctant warrior. and in this case, we should not pick sides in this thing. >> i want to play something that senator durbin said today about the iraq having on this debate. >> i have listened to this debate and i can't tell you how many times i have harkened back to 12 years ago over the debate on the war in iraq. maybe that is one of the curses of being in congress for a while. but some of these ghosts still rattle around the halls of the united states congress. there is a clear difference between what we are considering today and what happened 12 years ago. but our decision is being made in the shadow of the war of iraq. and with the spectre of a war in iran looming. >> patrick, that is from a

senator who voted to support the president's resolution to go in some form into syria. but there he is, saying that iraq is giving everyone pause in this debate. >> right, and it is giving the american people pause. listen, the bush administration, the bush/cheney, rumsfeld administration, they hoodwinked the american people. there was no weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection to 9/11. it was all false, the american people know that. that is why people are apprehensive, chemical weapons were used in syria, that is obscene. it breaks your heart when you see those pictures. i thought the congressman was right on the money.

and the republican from florida. you know, where are the other 188 countries? why aren't they speaking up? we need a true coalition. america cannot be the only policemen in the world. it is wrong, it is not at our core who we are as a people. >> the debate moved to the house of representatives today in that hearing in the house. and sadly, it may just be because there are more people in the house of representatives, but that seems to mean there is much more rank stupidity in the house of representatives. let's listen to congressman joe wilson. >> with the president's red line, why was there no call for military response in april? was it delayed to divert attention today from the benghazi, irs, nsa scandals. the failure of obama care enforcement. the tragedy of the white house drafted sequestration, or the upcoming debt limit vote.

again, why was there no call for military response four months ago when the president's red line was crossed? >> now, nothing even close to that stupid was said in the senate foreign relations committee yesterday. and you see joe wilson there, having to actually hold in his hands the paper and read word for word what his staff has written for him to say there. this is the time when -- i would think when you were sitting there in the house that you had to be embarrassed for the whole body at moments like this? >> absolutely, you know the saying, you work on capitol hill, for the first six weeks you say, i can't believe i'm here. and the next six months, you're saying how the heck did these people get here? >> exactly. >> lawrence, it is one of the most somber and serious responsibility in congress to put the men and women in harm's way. to see tea party knuckle heads, like congressman wilson,

politicalize this, this incredible responsibility when he knows that benghazi and the irs has nothing to do with syria, has nothing to do with the national defense is just disgraceful. >> former congressman and iraq war veteran, patrick murphy, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thanks, lawrence, i appreciate it. coming up, why does the world think that chemical weapons are worse than conventional weapons? and in the rewrite, the australian prime minister's brilliant defense of his new position on marriage equality you have to see this video. thank you orville and wilbur...

...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it. i don't miss out... you sat out most of our game yesterday! asthma doesn't affect my job... you were out sick last week. my asthma doesn't bother my family... you coughed all through our date night! i hardly use my rescue inhaler at all.

what did you say? how about - every day? coping with asthma isn't controlling it. test your level of control at asthma.com, then talk to your doctor. there may be more you could do for your asthma. i'm on expert on softball. and tea parties. i'll have more awkward conversations than i'm equipped for, because i'm raising two girls on my own. i'll worry about the economy more than a few times before they're grown. but it's for them, so i've found a way. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. ready to plan for your future? we'll help you get there. a talking car. but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it.

♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪ it is the sworn duty of georgia's republican insurance commissioner to implement president obama's affordable care act. and he has a plan. >> let me tell you what we're doing. everything in our power to be an obstructionist. >> nice. georgia has the fifth highest

percentage of uninsured citizens in the nation. 20% of georgia's 10 million residents have no health insurance. the rewrite is next with an amazing video that will really make you want to stand up and cheer for a politician who you will never be able to vote for. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. i knew that i could smoke for the first 7 days. i knew that i wasn't putting nicotine back into my body to try to quit. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems,

or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. if i could describe being a nonsmoker, i would say "awesome." [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

[ male announcer ] ask your doctor no two people have the same financial goals. pnc investments works with you to understand yours and helps plan for your retirement. talk to a pnc investments financial advisor today. ♪ like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business.

one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪ earlier this year, kevin rudd rewrote his position on marriage equality. in a lengthy essay that he posted on his blog and in a newspaper, he wrote, i have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions on same-sex marriage. i believe the church and state should be able to recognize same-sex marriage. a monday later, kevin rudd became australia's prime minister. in a television interview this

week, prime minister rudd was challenged by a pastor on his newly changed position on marriage equality. and prime minister rudd politely and brilliantly answered that challenge. >> hi, prime minister, i work for national christian radio network. most of the listeners and callers we have had on our radio station have been saying that they won't be voting for you, because they're disillusioned because you keep changing your vote on the subject of marriage equality. >> well, on the position of marriage equality, you're right. i took a position about three or four five months ago, coming back to the prime ministership, because i concluded in my conscience with an informed conscience, and christian conscience that it was the right thing to do.

number one, i do not believe that people when they're born do not choose their sexuality. they are born gay, you don't decide later in life. it is how people are built. and therefore, the idea that this is somehow an abnormal condition is just wrong. i don't get that. i think that is just a completely ill-founded view. secondly, if you accept that it is natural and normal for someone to be gay, because that is the way they are, then it follows from that that i don't think it is right to say that if two folk here, who are in love with each other and of the same gender should be denied the opportunity or legal recognition for the duration of their relationship by having marriage equality. if you accept that the starting point is that homosexuality is abnormal, i don't know if that is your view. >> well, i -- we'll get back to

our question. >> i just need to know. >> we just need to know what it is you believe that christians, in particular, are upset about. >> i think the thing is that -- you know, every pastor, the marriage is between husbands and wives. and jesus said a man shall leave his father and mother and be married and that is the biblical definition. i just believe in what the bible says and i'm just curious for you, kevin, if you call yourself a christian, why don't you believe the words of jesus in the bible. >> well, first, on that view, the bible also says that slavery is a natural condition.

because some area of the new testament says you should be slaves to your masters. i mean, for goodness sake, the social and human conditions change, what is the fundamental principles of the new testament? it is loving your fellow man, and if we get confused with that on the definition of sexuality, then we confuse the gospel, whether you call it personal or spiritual, and what it is all about. and therefore, i go back to my question, if you think homosexuality is not a natural condition, then frankly i can't agree with you on any of the sides. and therefore, if a person's sexuality is how they're made, then i have to ask the question, should a loving relationship be recognized? the answer is i should. and i wrote a 2 or 3,000 word

essay, stuck it on line, so everyone would know why i changed my position. the reasons for it. and it was the product of some many, many months and years of reflection, in good christian conscience. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. ♪ we go, go, we don't have to go solo ♪ ♪ fire, fire, you can take me higher ♪ ♪ take me to the mountains, start a revolution ♪ ♪ hold my hand, we can make, we can make a contribution ♪ ♪ brand-new season, keep it in motion ♪ ♪ 'cause the rhyme is the reason ♪ ♪ break through, man, it doesn't matter who you're talking to ♪ [ male announcer ] completely redesigned for whatever you love to do. the all-new nissan versa note.

your door to more. ♪

so why is killing with sarin gas worse than killing with bullets and bombs and drones and all the other methods of death through war? what is the big difference? i'm something of a pacifist myself, and so i don't really get, i really don't get what the

big difference is between these different methods of death. we're going to talk to an expert about this next. now, would you go? man: 'oh i can't go tonight' woman: 'i can't.' hero : that's what expedia asked me. host: book the flight but you have to go right now. hero: (laughs) and i just go? this is for real right? this is for real? i always said one day i'd go to china, just never thought it'd be today. anncr: we're giving away a trip every day. download the expedia app and your next trip could be on us. expedia, find yours.

usua l please. thank you very much. ok guys, i'm back. i need a template of a template. oh my gosh. i've never even seen this record, i've only read about it in books. yeah we can get some peanut...that is huge. please don't judge the amount of peanut butter we are getting. from prepaid to platinum, cashback and more membership has a card for every character. i'm carrie brownstein and i get to be whoever i want. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. >> i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are terrible and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war.

>> but why did the world set that red line? forbidding that specific weapon, chemical weapon? >> the 100,000 people that died in syria, now another thousand have died. they're all tragic deaths. but i'm not sure they're different because one came from gas and one came from a bullet. >> so tonight's question, why is death from gas different than from bullets. joining us now, dominic, i have been wondering about this for a while. and since i kind of stand out of war decision making, i am basically a pacifist, i am fascinated that people who want to engage in war think there needs to be very specific rules on how people die.

>> well, i think that is a great question. the entire case for war in syria really hinges on this idea that chemical weapons are uniquely evil. but the distinction between chemical weapons and conventional weapons is fairly arbitrary. it is not clear that conventional weapons like bombs or high explosives, or guns are any less brutal. after all, they have killed a 100,000 syrians, while chemical weapons have killed a thousand. i think we're too focused on the means, instead of the total overall number of casualties and the seriousness of the situation. >> the weapons ban has only been broken by hitler and saddam hussein. of course, when saddam hussein

used chemical weapons the united states of america approved. >> well, that is quite right. so back in the 1980s, saddam used chemical weapons both against the iranians and against his own people. now, of course, these were absolutely brutal attacks. there is no question. but they were among many different brutal acts that saddam carried out. and as you say, the united states tacitly went along with it. so it is not clear that this anti-chemical weapon rule is some sort of unbreakable vow of international politics. in fact, the last time chemical weapons were used, the u.s. essentially approved. >> there is also this notion that the chemical weapons are kind of uniquely harmful to civilian populations. but there is no method of war that does not also kill civilian populations. bombs do it. drones do it. we've seen soldiers firing their

individual weapons firing them at the wrong people. they have killed children and all sorts of innocence, unintentionally, sometimes even intentionally, in the case of lieutenant kelly in vietnam and other misbehaviors in war. and so even that concept of the gas is uniquely vicious to innocents ignores the fact that every method of war is vicious to innocents. >> right, i couldn't agree more. i mean, if you ask a woman in aleppo who has just seen her family blown up by artillery fire, and if you ask her if she takes solace that they didn't die in a gas attack, of course she would find that absurd. and we can end up in a truly ridiculous situation here where if assad stops using chemical weapons but then goes back to killing his people conventionally, are we really going to call that a victory? >> that, i guess is what we're

going to call a victory. professor of political science, thank you very much for joining me tonight. rumors of war. let's play "hardball." ♪ good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. what is it that makes me resist all this? what is it that makes me ask why attacking syria and killing a bunch of people there would be a signal to the people running syria that they were wrong to kill a bunch of people in syria? we shoot cruise missiles into the country, kill dozens of people who happen to be working in or living near a weapons pile. the idea is to teach their government a lesson. i guess killing its people is a way of instructing him not to do the same.