doma is an anomaly. and i don't think there was one exw disagreement with that on the court today, at least what one could hear from the questions. >> woodruff: the other strand on this -- and you touched on this, mary bonauto-- whether there is oit and out discrimination. we heard it from justice sotomayor. we heard it from justice kagan. we heard her ask at one point-- she talked about moral disapproval of home's sexuality. how does that play out in the court today and how important is that tho deciding this case? >> more important is that the obama administration rejected. they readily said in court doma was not driven by animous. in fact, they said doma-- what is called rational basis reviewsh the federal standard under equal protection when we evaluate laws-- the obama solicitor general, verrilli, said if rational base review is the tet doma would survive. this lou-- they said congress made a mistake in passing it but was not trying to discriminate. >> woodruff: so what role do you see discriminatio

and doma was about fear.t was about president clinton who wanted to get re-elected and republicans were about to do something and he felt he had to do what was necessary to sign this legislation. there are a lot of people, including myself, opposed to doma from the very beginning and i think that there was a lack of political courage on all parties at that point in the early 1990s. but times have changed. times have changed since 2004 when john kerry didn't even support marriage equality. we as presidential nominee for democratic party. we are now in 2013. we have a president of the united states who supports marriage equality. majority of americans support marriage equality. more members of congress are coming out to say this. in supreme court there is an inclination times have changed and they are coming to grips with that reality. >> let me read what our first teams say about speaker bainer. speaker boehner and house republicans spent millions to dough fend the act in court after the obama administration s

anality but since doma is still the law of the land and the justice department still technically in force is that someone or something asked argue for it in this case that means attorneys for the bipartisan legal action group congressional body that has the authority to represent the house of representatives in a court of law maybe yes that's right john boehner the house republicans are using taxpayer dollars to fight for a law that the justice department and most of the country for that matter doesn't agree with because of the some commentators who question whether or not blog and its attorneys actually have standing to defend doma in front of the supreme court if they don't the justices could just dismiss the case standing by the way was a huge theme in yesterday's hollingsworth the perry hearings as well as california officials have decided similarly not to defend that state's gay marriage ban in front of the courts the justices were concerned that the lawyers arguing for the ban in california didn't actually represent any of the interested parties in it and the justices touched on sta

they passed doma in the 1990's. so around 4, 5, that we are running around with these bills and one of the court-stripping bills stripped the court of judicial review was specifically on doma. so aware were they that it could not withstand judicial review that they wanted to pass a bill and the purpose of the bill was to strip the court of the power to review constitutionality of doma. they probably would -- they put it on doma and maybe they weren't thinking at the time, probably wouldn't have gotten a presidential signature for doma. but because they themselves wanted to shield doma from the review of the court, i think they know it's very weak and that it will fall. >> how about the justices? >> well, there's always that. i keep praying. i keep praying on that. i know it's unconstitutional. the question is -- i think it's a pretty good case. >> on doma or both? >> i think doma falls is not strictly speaking make a prop 8. there are still some issues. but i think we have to get doma to fall. prop 8 to me is ridicu

this could be the winning argument so is doma done with issues of standing sway the court and warm. what the what does today's hearing mean for the future of the rights movement in america let's ask shane farnsworth a supreme court reporter for the talk radio news service and joe toy federal director for freedom to marry and welcome to both of you. if i can start with you with this whole blag thing if i can somewhat disagree with my own set up and the you know it's not like somebody has to defend this law it's in fact the administration either should be defending the law and enforcing it or should be saying the law is unconstitutional and refusing to enforce it and instead they're refusing to defend it but they're continuing to enforce it which makes no sense and john roberts called out the president did call him how does that ever sit for asli he said he lacked the courage that if you really fox if it was unconstitutional the shouldn't force it in fact the president swears an oath to defend the constitution so you could actually argue that it's violating that by enforcing a law tha

today doma. as perhaps expecting that the court would issue some kind of sweeping ruling on gay rights. and it doesn't seem that that's going to be the case. certainly not from the prop 8 argument yesterday where the court seemed to be searching for the narrowest possible way to permit marriage to resume only in california without setting a national precedent. and today if a majority of -- or if justice kennedy is the controlling vote here and he sees this more as federalism than discrimination, that could be a very narrow opinion as well. >> pete, let's look at this thing. here's justice kennedy. it focuses on his concerns about the defense of marriage act. i think he's going to strike it down. doma. and how it interferes with state rights, as you say. let's listen. >> when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at -- at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essenc

and not allow anybody to get married. >> if they strike doma down on certain grounds, doma violates basic rights of equality, that leaves a lot that ban same-sex marriage dangling. >> scott: there is a question of standing and both cases asked both sides to argue why they have the right to be there. how big a deal is that? is that a sleeper issue? >> it is a big issue. one of the cues we have of that is the supreme court asked for briefing on that question and is allowing time for separate oral argument on that question in both cases. i think the issue of standing in relation to prop 8 is an interesting one. as vik said, the attorney general and governor from the get-go have not defended prop 8. the question is whether these proponents of prop 8 represented by mr. pugno we heard earlier have the right to do that. essentially, the ballots are private citizens. they are not people elected to make litigation decisions. you have a situation where you have private parties who might be able to make litigation decisions and have no accountability for that. nor any delegation of authority t

some say doma may be in trouble. >>> also, congressman john lewis who passionately fought against doma will not turn my back on another american. i will not my fellow human being. >> he will join us live for the "news nation" conversation on the supreme court. >>> plus, the fight over the reward money tied to the chris dorner case. a million dollars at stake. but mrs. now a battle over who led police to the man who killed four l.a. officers. it is all coming up next on "news nation." we've all had those moments. when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership. would absolutely not have taken a zip line in the jungle. i'm really glad that girl stayed at home. vo: expedia helps 30 million travelers a month find what they're looking for. one traveler at a time. expedia. find yours. "news nation" is breaking news righ

, section three of doma. and no one has identified any legitimate federal interest that is being served by congress's decision for the first time in our nation's history to undermine the determination of the sovereign states with respect to eligibility for marriage. i would respectfully contend that this is because there is none. rather, as the title of the statute makes clear, doma was enacted to defend against the rights of gay people. this was rooted in moral -- >> what do you think is -- the argument that i heard was to put the other side, at least one part of it, as i understand it, look, the federal government needs a uniform rule. there has been this uniform one man-one woman rule for several hundred years, whatever, and there's a revolution going on in the states. we either adopt the revolution or push is along a little, or we stay out of it. and i think mr. clement was saying, we need to stay out of it. the way to stay out is to go with the traditional thing. that's an argument. so your answer is wha

or prosecute any doma specific cases. and then over the summer of last year, coming out in a full throated endorsement for marriage equality before his re-election. it would be quite a contradiction if the president had come out for marriage equality but was having his department of justice go after and criminalize doma-style cases and knowing full well it was headed to the supreme court anyway. >> you know, jonathan, it's interesting. again, this idea that the justices as you pointed out seem to be trying to find these various off ramps, you know, sort of not have to decide or not make a sweeping decision, the language we heard yesterday. yet this is an issue that has overwhelming public support. it is an issue that has garnered a lot of public attention. it just strikes me as, i don't know, i'll just say it, a little bit of a lack of courage. though i thought some of the women members had some of the best questions to be honest. made some of the best points. we need the supreme court to have a little courage here, right

i was council during the doma proceedings.emember how decidedly and openly and unapologetically bigoted that entire process was. we had two days of markup. i remember a colleague of mine who was counsel, happened to be gay, i remember seeing tears in his eyes because of the open bigotry that went on in that committee room, and it is just really disappointing you don't see the court wanting to tackle the central issue here. >> let's listen to the chairman of the republican party thinking out loud about what has happened to the public attitude that has changed so much on this issue. >> why is this an issue in which we are seeing support for same-sex marriage rise so rapidly in a really short period of time? >> i'm not sure, but i think it's obviously -- i think it is part of culture. i think it's an interesting topic to people, it's not all debts and math and deficits and long term, you know, credit scores and things like that. >> there you have it, jonathan capehart, there's no math. >> it is oh, so easy, it is an interesting t

can one house of congress defend doma without the other?hird, even if one house could, did a committee have the power to intervene, and fourth does the administration of the president's agreement to deprive the supreme court of the judds. again, remember, the obama administration informed eric holder not to enforce doma, but it seems like a game of chicken with the president says i want the supreme court to do this, and the supreme court saying why isn't the president enforcing this or trying to do something on his own accord. it's an odd, trying two-step right now. about you we'll know full well by 2:00 when we have the full audio. >> jeffrey, i wanted to give you a chance to speak to thomas' points. >> i think he summarized the dilemma very accurately, and john roberts said, can you name a single case in history where congress has had the power -- or one house of congress has had the power to defend an act ofeniof that the president has not defended? we all knew that conservative justices might be skeptical, but the fact that liberal just

, section 3 of doma.and no one has identified any legitimate federal interest that is being served by congress's decision, for the first time in our nation's history to undermine the determinations of the sovereign states with respect to eligibility for marriage. i would respectfully contend that this is because there is none. rather, as the title of the statute makes clear, doma was enacted to defend against the marriages of gay people. this discriminatory purpose was rooted in moral disapproval as justice kagan pointed out. >> what -- what do you think of his -- the argument that i heard was, to put the other side, at least one part of it as i understand it said: look, the federal government needs a uniform rule. there has been this uniform one man one woman rule for several hundred years or whatever, and there's a revolution going on in the states. we either adopt the resolution -- the revolution or push it along a little, or we stay out of it. and i think mr. clement was saying, well, we've decided to

, section 3 of doma. and no one has identified any legitimate federal interest that is being served by congress's decision, for the first time in our nation's history to undermine the determinations of the sovereign states with respect to eligibility for marriage. i would respectfully contend that this is because there is none. rather, as the title of the statute makes clear, doma was enacted to defend against the marriages of gay people. this discriminatory purpose was rooted in moral disapproval as justice kagan pointed out. >> what -- what do you think of his -- the argument that i heard was, to put the other side, at least one part of it as i understand it said -- look, the federal government needs a uniform rule. there has been this uniform one man one woman rule for several hundred years or whatever, and there's a revolution going on in the states. we either adopt the resolution -- the revolution or push it along a little, or we stay out of it. and i think mr. clement was saying, well, we've decided

-- a section 3 of doma.no one has identified federal interest that is being served by congress for the first time in our nations history to undermine undermine the determinations of the sovereign states to respect to eligibility for for marriage. i respectfully contend that this is because there is none. as the title of the statute wass clear, the --doma enacted to defend marriage. it was rooted in a moral disapproval. >> the argument i heard from the other side -- at least as i understand it, is look, the federal government needs a uniform rule. uniform one-this man-one-woman rule for several years. there is a revolution going on in the states. we either adopt the resolution or push it along and stay out of it. i think mr. clement was saying, we have decided to stay out of it. the way to stay out of it is to go with the traditional thing. that is an argument. your answer is what? i understand. [laughter] >> congress should not stay out of it. section 3 of doma is not staying out of it. it is stopping the re

and the doma case is even weirder. these are people who were married in their states. >> the state of new york would have recognized the marriage. >> there are people who dispute it. but now the governor of the state of new york. >> it was not settled in 2009 when the woman died. many any rate, there were people married under their state. >> why should those people have to come to congress in order to be treated with minimal debates ebright their own government when their state have married them? >> i think that brings the question of of minimal dignity. this gets to the whole question of exactly what doma does, which perhaps we can turn to. >> i want to do two things first. but first i want to ask paul, if the plaintiffs in doma are asking for some kind of rational basis or some kind of higher review, is there any basis for doing it if your state is medium rare or medium? >> i remember talking about the debora levels of scrutiny and it suggested that there was this -- for its intermediate scrutiny for gender. >> if yo

we're guandique making the case for why doma -- we are going to keep making the case for why doma isng, and the integrity of marriage and one matters to gay and lesbian people. we are not certainly catching our chickens yet. we still have work to do. >> and the move and you envision, the issues in particular, scot, that you would like to see addressed? >> i would like to see advanced for everyone. i would like us to see us make our family lost more roomy so we all fit in them. i certainly think we need to be part of the fight for greater security, more access to more things. for instance, many of our welfare regulations have a narrow view of family. i think we need to correct that. it has real economic consequences for people. it is about piecing together the way these lost it more and more people, every part of our community. >> thank you both for being with us. i want people to weigh in on our facebook page and twitter as we continue this discussion. ,arc solomon and scot nakagawa thank you for being with us. ,nakagawa's article online "why i support same sex marriage as a civil ri

today the court looks at doma. and against doma focus on? how will that be a little bit different than the prop 8 argument? >> this really centers on the one central question of whether or not the federal government can deny federal benefits to same-sex couples. we're talking about things like tax benefits and social security and pension benefits. also there's a question of whether or not same-sex couples that are married in states that allow it, whether their marriages could be recognized nationally. we've got some new cnn/orc polling on that very matter, on that same question. should the federal government recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that allow it. 56% of the people in our you is va say yes. 43% say no. just goes to show you how the majority of americans are backing, beginning to back this notion of same-sex marriage. >> all right. shannon travis. thanks, shannon, in front of the supreme court. 7:00 a.m. hour of "starting point" senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin breaks down yesterday's argu

the guy who passed doma in the first place was president clinton. now he stays in an op-ed, quote . . . so that's good. now there is a collection of exports, who pay particular attention to the supreme court of the united states. after hearing the arguments today they said this . . . so jay kennedy of course is justice kennedy, and he will probably be the deciding factor here. and some his quotes today, it becomes obvious that he is very spectacle about doma. let me read you one of those quotes. now the reason why that is so important is because here is justice kennedy actually being consistent of on state's rights. saying it is a state's rights issue, it's not the federal government's business. so they should respect the laws of the individual states. if he rules that way it would be huge, because doma would be knocked down. there is of course a possibility that they rule on technical grounds and -- and then it becomes a little bit more complicated. let's bring in an expert to talk to this, nan hunter. thank you so much for joining us. really appre

>> in the case of today's argument on doma, the marriage labeling could not be more crucial. section 3 of the 1996 23er8 law defining marriage as strictly between a man and a wo prohibit legally wed same-sex couples from receiving many of the same federal benefits as straight married couples. ediwindsor, her case is before the court. she had to pay $363,000 in federal estate tax when is her spouse the aeismt spire died in 2009. she would have been exempt from those taxes if the law recognized her as the next of kin. bill clinton signed doma under pressure from republicans in 1996. "new york times" report that mr. clinton was unwilling to risk his reelection by vetoes it. earlier this morning, he acknowledged the blemish, saying that doma was a relic from an earlier era while its time has passed. today's d opt ma arguments

she tud to overturn doma. specific claim, it was clear a number of justices have a problem with how the law is playing out in reality in 2013. denying numerous federal benefit to same-sex couples especially if they are legally married in their home state. >> every aspect of life, your partner is sick. social security -- it's pervasive. it's not as though this little federal sphere and it's only a tax question. it's, as justice kennedy said, 1100 statutes and it affects every area of life. >> others signal the broader issue of whether doma equates to the federal government speaking on an issue that is more properly left to the states. >> i think it is. the question is whether or not the federal government under our federalism scheme has the authority to regulate marriage. >> there are real concerns once again about whether the justices will get to the merits of considering same-sex marriage. the jurisdictionm and technical issues in this case were so thorny the court appointed an outside attorney to argue just

the i=r=s said under doma, she did not qualify as a surviving spouse. her challenge is now before the supreme court. >> i know the spirit of my late spouse thea spyer, ok, is right here watching and listening and would be very proud and happy of where we've come to. thank you all. >> pam: at 5-30. we will take you live to washington d,c. right outside the u.s. supreme court. and get a first hand account of the atmosphere there today. on this second day of historic hearings on same- sex marriage. and tune in to kron4's 24-7 bay area news channel, tonight at 7-pm. kron 4 will air the entire supreme court hearing on doma -- on a continuous loop through 4-am. that's on comcast channel 193. or you can stream it online at kron-4-dot.com. right now -- stormy weather expected here in the bay area. you are looking live from our camera atop mount tamalpais in the north bay. now a live look at downtown san francisco. cloudy skies - some light rain just a short time ago. jaqueline bennet is standing by in the kron4 weather center. she's tracking this stormy weather

liberal justice ruth bader ginsburg complained doma created two marriages. the full marriage and then the skim milk marriage. >> swing justice anthony kennedy said doma intrudes on states who choose to recognize gay marriage. the defensing lawyer argued it helps the u.s. military keep couples from refusing transfers that allow gay marriage. attorney general eric holder enforced drk oma. he sent no lawyer to defend it today. >> i'm wondering if we're living in this new world where the attorney general can simply decide it's unconstitutional. >> after the argument edie was optimistic. zbr i felt very respected. and i think it's going to be good. >> and as a lesbian, she feels liberated. >> i'm talking to you freely. i would have been hiding in a closet ten years ago. >> a ruling in the doma case comes in a few months. >> most court watches are predicting with anthony kennedy, the swing justice, voting that doma is likely to be declared unconstitutional. miswindsor may get her money back. i'm steve handlesman, nbc bay area news. >> coming up on nightly news, mo

and social security and been turned down due to doma.as that that this happened on the heels of charlie's passing, know they knew full well of charlie's valiant battle? >> yes, it was hurtful, however, it gives me hope. charlie and i knew that this was possible that our family would be left out of whatever decision was made in the long run, if she passed away before a decision was made. so, you know, in the end, even if something is not extended to me, the important part of our fight really is that other families across the nation will be recognized ultimately, receive benefits in recognition that is due to them as soldiers who put their life on the line for their country. >> i think it really is amazing to people to think that out of what evolved from repealing don't ask/don't tell, and charlie came out live on our air when don't ask/don't tell was repealed. that started our relationship with you. and that started our relationship with you coming on this program. is your hope for casey elena that this will rectified this summer absolute

proposition 8, which would have banned gay marriage there, and the federal defense of marriage act, doma, which recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman. tim o'brien was at the court, listening to the stices, and he filed this rert. >> reporter: the debate over same-sex marriage that has so divided the country brought thousands on both sides of the issue to the supreme court tuesday and wednesday. they were passionate, and together they made it one of the largest demonstrations at the high court in decades. defenders of traditional marriage also held a separate demonstration on the national mall. religious groups do not speak with one voice on the same-sex marriage issue, but more oppose it than support it. salvatore cordileone, archbishop of san francisco, is one of the co-authors of prop 8. he also chairs the committee on marriage of the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. >> why really, though, are we here? one simple reason -- marriage matters to kids. what could be more beautiful or even more sacred than a man and a woman coming together to create new life? >> reporter: i

some justices questioned whether doma steps on state marriage laws.ce john roberts criticized president obama for the decision to stop enforcing doma. >> "what gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is?" >> "i don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the constitution." supporters of doma say changing it would threaten the sanctity of marriage. this case follows tuesday's showdown over proposition 8. which bans same-sex marriage in california. after hearing both oral arguments this week, the supreme court can decide to make a ruling on the future of marriage. or not. until about 20 years ago, the u-s had no legal definition of who was eligible to get married. congress passed the defense of marriage act just as same-sex couples were beginning to press for equality. the year was 1994. same sex marriages were not legal anywhere in the country. but in hawaii, the state supreme court hinted it might allow them

, if they strike down doma.age equality won't be the law of the land. in all the states that legally recognize smarame-sex marriagesy marriage has to be valid in the federal government's eyes. where i live i'm legally married. >> it's not that mississippi would have to accept a marriage from massachusetts. >> the state of mississippi would have to determine their own marriage guidelines. >> one question that i have which is fascinating as a lay person. what is the real connection from yesterday's case to today's case? there seemed to be overlapping factors. when you read it, you have to understand it. it's distrust with the overlap. what's the real connection? >> yesterday's case i think is a much harder issue for the court. when the supreme court declares the existence of the fundamental right, that's a huge deal. about as big as it gets for the supreme court. that's a difficult thing for a conservative court to do. that's what the justices were feeling uncomfortable with. they can get their hands around and i

doma isppears now that very shaky. while we stand for defense of marriage as between one man and one woman, it is quite clear that definition on the federal level is at great risk likely .y 5 to 4 if that should happen, we have urged an hour brief that this court take into consideration theexquisitely guaranteeing religious freedom of military chaplains, civilian chaplains who are under orders by federal authorities as well as other clergy who are required by law to swear an oath to uphold the constitution. in this case, may in fact, have solemnizeority to marriages held in doubt. today is a historic day in an putsent in the court, and at risk the religious liberties of dually-authorized clergy, particularly those who are under the authority of the federal government, such as the hundreds of military chaplains in this country. i am chairman of the evangelical church standing in the -- defense of the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. evangelical church alliance, headquartered in bradle

that's what doma says. overturning doma is a big deal. it looks like it is going to happen because justices yesterday expressed a lot of skepticism about treating married couples differently. married couples differently perhaps ruth bader ginsburg said it best. >> really diminishing what the state has said is marriage. you're saying no, state says two kinds of marriages. full marriage and then this sort of skim milk marriage. >> bill: you got the full -- you got the whole milk -- >> the whole full fat milk. >> bill: and then you got the skim milk marriage. states should not be able to discriminate. sonia sotomayor says by the way who gives the federal government this right? >> what gives the federal government the right to be concerned that all -- at all at what the definition of marriage is? >> bill: even conservatives like justice kennedy and chief justice roberts came on to that point that this is -- defining what marriage is and who can get married is really up to the states, not to the federal government. and states should not be abl

only section 3 of doma is up for debate. that the portion that defines the word, marriage, as one man and one woman as husband and wife for the federal government. but it impacts about 1100 benefits. that's what today's argument are about. think social security. federal estate and income tax as well as medical and family leave. same-sex couples who are legally married don get them. simply because they are gay. at the center of today's case is an 83-year-old new yorker, edie windsor, forced to pay $338,000 in federal estate taxes when her wife died. >> i am today an out lesbian who just sued the united states of america, which is kind of overwhelming for me. i realized that federal government was treating us as strangers and i paid a humungous estate tax. and it meant selling a lot of stuff to do it, and it wasn't easy. i live o on fixed income and it wasn't easy. >> inside the supreme court today, j six justices question whether doma is really about discrimination. take a listen to some of them. >> for the federal government

doma doesn't seem fair. while the court will not rule until june, it appears that a majority of justices are leaning towards striking down the law. the four liberal justices argued that the law was discriminatory. >> it affects every area of life, and so you are really diminishing what the state has said is marriage. you're saying, no, state -- there are two kinds of marriages. the full marriage and then this sort of skim milk marriage. >> what gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is. so they can create a class they don't like, or a class that they consider is suspect in the marriage category. >> justice anthony kennedy, the court's traditional swing vote, seemed prepared to rule against doma, citing not discrimination at the root of his concern, but state's rights. >> when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means the federal government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are, at real risk of running in conflict with what has

. >> i think they will probably overturn doma.t's crucial as justice kennedy said, if congress doesn't have the authority to define marriage because that's traditionally a state role, then we don't need to reach the equal protection, or decide in the appeals case that the law constitutionally discriminates against gays and that would eliminate the doma question. >> paul: do you agree? >> i don't. doma was written in a specific context and time, you had in the 90's was why is the supreme court legalizing gay marriage and suddenly the federal government has to confront a world where some states are allowing gay marriage, some states aren't. and whatever it does, whether it recognizes these marriages, whether it doesn't, it's putting its thumb on one scale or another. what it's saying is, whoa, let's wait a minute. we will recognize the traditional definition for the time being, and see how the debate plays out in the states. >> paul: dan, briefly, is this as a political matter? is this debate over, essentially, will gay marriage be

i want to begin with you because you experienced the injury of doma which is to say what did doma mean did it deny you would have had if doma was not will? >> i was in an interesting position because i was in the house with my husband during the debate in 1996. and even then, we saw that it was blatant discrimination against gay people. i remember that gerry went on the floor and spoke he made as much into and did everything every other member of congress did. but yet, the protections that their spouses would have would be denied me. little did i know that we would get married six years later and little did i know that he would die two years after that. it hurt then knowing that congress was putting a law on the books that hurt me personally. it was even harder after he died to know that what was in abstract point in the 1996 was now concrete reality that i was denied anything that a spouse of a federal employee for 25 years would have been given in due course. >> when would that have been? i mean -- presumably -- pension benefits. >> pension benefits. health insurance. even something