you tell us that chad griffin and ted olson that they were frustrated and chad wanted to scream and therewas the ninth circuit. >> the judge save to their case for them. >> and they also wanted to be to the doma cases to the supreme court. i wonder why he thinks that was the case? settled think anybody thought it would be bad to strike down at doma at the same time of marriage equality for same-sex couples. do you think it does not sound like rational people thinking to me. >> let me play out the thinking on their side. it was so fortunate and lucky for them that the case was slowed down and several points at several times. >> host: they tried to speed it up. >> guest: that is what i am saying exactly. it is fortunate for them that they did not get their way and the case did prove that slowly because it allowed the country to move in the direction of a marriage equality to create an atmosphere that was more conducive. that is why when paul was not too worried when he came in that morning. on the other hand,, chuck cooper the of lawyer fighting to keep proposition viii thought it was the g

i wonder why he didn't just say it was a big deal for chad griffin to get ted olson on board because he's a republican leader. did you think that the gay legal groups weren't working in a high partisan fashion before chad griffin wrote the playbook wax. >> guest: listen i spent a whole chapter on new york which i think is a fascinating state legislative battle. what happened in new york was of course there was a bipartisan effort but andrew cuomo of new york called out the groups together and he said i don't want a repeat. the groups are disorganized and have not worked well together. he put someone in charge and he says not just in this book but "the new york times." one of the characters in the book that i find interesting ted melvyn of course was the architect of bush's real action came out specifically to join the group bringing the lawsuit. he named ted olson. it was quite controversial at the time. of course ted was widely seen as the architect of the bands that were put on the ballot to help drive evangelical turnout in these elections. can worked really hard with that and mark

reading a book about marriage equality when what they are really reading about is a story of chad griffin and ted olson and their team with the plaintiffs bringing a lawsuit that did not. it doesn't seem to very seriously. >> guest: i would have to disagree. i think that when i'm talking about john davidson feeling disrespected we are going to file a federal lawsuit. so we talk about it. it wasn't that anybody disagreed with the goal, with the end goal. everybody wanted to see that happen and understood how important it is that the supreme court would validate this community. >> they don't understand why this is an issue. the question was how fast and it's an important question and i think that was really concerned a lot of people but also the litigation and the decision of course upheld a law. what happened as it was just a terrible step back. it was used as a precedent for all sort of other things. >> and then what happened is there was a slow building effort. people wanted marriage in mary y and even in the 1970s and in the '80s people were bringing marriage equality. people have been thinking about

olson, a guy liberals loved to hate. he won bush v gore for bush, how he had come to embrace this cause. i was hooked. you had rob reiner, the movie direct, chad griffin, a young political op pra active and the pairing up of these super lawyers ted olson and david boies who was his adder have usairy in bush v gore. i wanted to know what does it feel like to be the face of -- in a major civil rights case. >> brown: and the strategy which is part of -- much of what you write, the strategy they pursued of controversial even within the gay rights movement, right? tell us how they decided to good for the federal lawsuit? >> at the time there was a real feeling that the supreme court wasn't ready, the country wasn't ready and what the activities were pursuing was this ten, ten, ten strategy to have 30 states with some form of marriage recognition before you went the federal route. this group thought it was time to do something different brownch the danger was its could be become fire. >> it was a gamable. a lot of visitities working for years on this issue were extremely upset by it. there was a scene i describe in the book where they were called to