court of doma was struck down and prop 8 died even though it was on a technicality, not only have we seen a change in the number of states that now permit same-sex couples to marry at 37, but the polls show that over 60% of our friends neighbors, co-workers, fellow citizens support the freedom to marry and kennedy is no real firebrand. he is judicious. he is cautious. and i think he needed those two years. i think i agree. he had gone out on a limb to find that in the text of the constitution two years ago i'm not sure. this extra two years gave them the time with the other four to now say let's do this. >> you know another person who has done this famously is president obama and he came into office saying he opposed gay marriage and he's leading the charge on it. what do you make, either one of you, about what influence has he had either on the public opinion side or on the court? i mean, the federal government came out in several of these cases in support of same-sex marriage before the court. >> you know the biggest en influence that the president has had -- and he did not always

for doma to come back to brazil and say this trip was successful? >> i think from the washington perspective and i probably the private sector, american private sector perspective i think the clear indication there is room for improvement in terms of the economic gains for brazilian economy would be the key element. if she had these in her hands when she comes back to brazil, this i think is the assets that she need to forward, to go forward in a sense to build this kind of, to build the kind of political -- she needs to implment. to create the idea that there is a concrete economic gains for brazil in this approach with the u.s. >> and roberto on the u.s. side with president obama his fourth quarter, what is that have to look like for it to be a win from the u.s. perspective? or is it already a win? >> i, you know, i think we don't set the bar to low, but i think that the fact that we are back to having regular conversations, that there is a lot going on below that all of -- we set up at both ministerial level and below are now working again after

deciding not to defend doma.se things were absolutely essential to bringing the country along with us for what happened on friday. >> great insider view. thank you so much, anita dunn, ben labolt, stephanie cutter. coming up the donald. polls show whatever you think of him, he is a serious white house contender. i asked him what he thinks about same-sex marriage. >> i'm traditional marriage. it is changing rapidly. >> but what do you say to a lesbian who's married or a gay man who is married who says, donald trump, what's traditional about being married three times? so you're a small business expert from at&t? yeah, give me a problem and i've got the solution. well, we have 30 years of customer records. our cloud can keep them safe and accessible anywhere. my drivers don't have time to fill out forms. tablets. keep them all digital. we're looking to double our deliveries. our fleet apps will find the fastest route. oh, and your boysenberry apple scones smell about done. ahh, you're good. i like to bake. with at&t

the court struck down the part of doma that denied federal recognition. this is the next logical step. and look, i know -- i grew up mormon in utah, so i know that there will be individuals who will not be happy with a court ruling that embraces our lives and endorses our relationships and recognizes our right to marry. but you know what? those numbers of those who oppose us are diminishing, and we're now at 60% of our neighbors, friends, co-workers, and family who support our relationship. so what it means is, how we get that other 40% or how we get 10% more or 20% more is we just keep the conversation going, and we live authentic lives, and we show people that there is nothing to fear with equality and dignity and justice. it makes our nation stronger and our families and our communities better. >> and that's why we're having this conversation today. so, both of you were nodding as kate was speaking. so, michelle, let me start with you. you have a partner. >> i do. >> hope sometime you might want to get married. >> absolutely. >> so what does this mean

you look at doma. you have a great congress and signed by a president and then later have it undone by a supreme court. so whatever you do in all these other fields the courts ultimately have the final word on it in many ways or the final legal word in our system. >> i guess on the religious freedom front i would add a couple of things that could be done concretely. i think it is important to continue to press for laws that both the federal and the state level that will protect the religious liberty of believers both individuals and institutions from the various obvious problems that the decision creates. one is the first amendment defense act which was proposed by senator lee and also proposed in the house. i think that law deserves our support because at least at the federal level it would deal with a number of the issues that we talked about today including tax exemption issue and government contracts and licensing and those sorts of things. a lot of the problems are going to arise at the state leve

course that was overturned by a federal court after the supreme court in 2013 issued that decision on domaow even more clarity from the supreme court. get into the opinion a little bit more for us mike. >> reporter: it's interesting you should bring that up stephanie, because 36 states either by court action or legislative action within the state's legislature had marriage equality, it was these four states that were holding out, because they fell under the 6th circuit that allowed them to uphold their laws essentially banning gay marriage. anthony kennedy considered to be the swing court on so many issues that come before this body. he was once again the swing vote. i'm going to read some of the opinion. he vote the majority opinion, and it is going to be music to the ears that support same-sex marriage. he cites four principals and traditions. one of them citing the infamous loving case from the 60s against laws that banned marriage between blacks and whites those laws being struck down decisions about marriage are among the most inta mate an individual can make. and citing the griswold

states draws that type of flying but what is so important with riffs -- with respect to dome of -- was doma to recognize out-of-state marriages even though they could not be celebrated with in the state is the circumstance where the issue arises. >> but are we able to identify five instances to not recognize a marriage for what they would have that justification not to recognize the losses that the court would want to rely in this instance such as the rule to allow a divorced person to remarry. more importantly the most recent is 1970. the rule that the state's site to dissolve marriages that they use to begin their lives is less applied. >> but you are avoiding the perception that the state's policy for supporting same-sex marriage is sufficiently strong man where it is so much weaker talking about marriages from other states. >> in order to distinguish the situation in the first case that the council is emphasizing task for other people are allowed to in the first place. we know through windsor because the court held once married they have the constitutional protected liberty interest in

surprise was that it came today but turns out today is the two-year anniversary of the striking down of domar or more anniversary of lawrence versus texas which struck down criminalization of gay conduct. justice kennedy who wrote the opinion wrote a major historical opinion and it is clear he was writing for history. he is a californian. >> is there a next step that could happen with this? or is this what we are going to see going forward? >> we will see what impact this has in other areas public accommodations, employment discrimination, public housing. for this issue this is the end of this. the supreme court has embedded this. it is five to four. the four dissenters don't have a lot to say other than it is not in the constitution. there is a lot not in the constitution. the air force isn't in the constitution. the idea that it is not in the constitution is not dispositive. the constitution is supposed to respond to a concept of liberty and equality. that is what the court said today. >> even though justice scalia wrote a passionate eight-page dissent let's say we mix it in with president

people who remember the celebration two years ago to the day when the supreme court ruled on prop 8 and doma including a man who says he will now marry his -- >> my son was born today. two years ago we celebrated and we're going to celebrate again. >> i'm ecstatic. i met my partner on my 20th birthday. i'm 64 she's 65 we're still together. we mean it. >> i think it's joy and there's a lot of pain behind it that's just being released. it's gone. i don't have to have that or carry that or you know? and hopefully now we can get on to bigger and better things. >> reporter: back here live you can see they are taking the flag up over city hall but there are plenty of people in front who are celebrating. they flags of their own. by the note senator mark lando sell the fight is far from over. you still have plenty of states that don't recognize rights federally, so we'll have more in half an hour. live at san francisco city hall stephanie chuang nbc bay area news. >> stef, thanks. >>> and that was the raucous reaction from outside the supreme court, as the ruling was released. you can see jubilation

joining us now is roberta kaplan who successfully argued the case that struck down doma. right about what's going on in mississippi? >> pretty much. >> in terms of the big picture here, i feel like we've got sort of dead enders. i feel like there's people who are slow walking the inevitable. >> they're mad about marriage, i think you said. some people mad about marriage. >> i don't feel like as a nonlawyer, i look at this and don't feel there's legal ambiguity. >> it's going to be clear. i don't think there's going to be much of a battle. even before there was a clear supreme court case, supreme court decision, in states where there were marriage, states like north carolina, et cetera, there's usually one county, two counties, a bunch more, and extra county caught up. i think we're going to see the same thing in mississippi, louisiana, and hopefully even in alabama. >> if they dig in in a place like alabama, mississippi, or certain parts of the state, how does it get resolv around these things, what is the sort of horizon, the time horizon in terms of how long it will tak

. >> when you argued before the supreme court -- and my understanding is you argued the doma case. >> i did not. >> oh, i'm sorry. when you argued this case before the supreme court. to read the tea leaves judging by how the justices are reacting to your argument when you are laying your case and they are sharply questioning you. did you have any indication this would come down the way it did. >> i tried not to read too much into it because it's their job to explore the boundary of the theories. but we had the briefs the argument, and the 14th amendment. which guarantee equal protection to all of us and that's what the court vindicated today. this is a landmark victory without a doubt, but i hope we also rededicate ourselves to making sure that other people who are singled out for who they are, and subjected to unspeakable acts of violence as people are mourning right now in charleston, that we make this promise secure for everyone person in this country. >> mary what is next legally for the gay rights movement. >> i hope implementation will be swift and smooth and that people will be

roberts dissented strongly in win door, the previous doma case, he said no, states shouldn't have to recognize the federal government shouldn't have to recognize same-sex marriage. would he switch over or will he stay in dissent? my money is that he stays in dissent, but it's very close. >> as someone who covers the supreme court regularly where do you rank this session so far in historic importance? >> i think it's right up there. i think it compares to the term in which the first affordable care act case came down. i think obviously if we have a decision affirming a nationwide right to same-sex marriage, this will be considered one of the major terms like 1954, or 1973, and so, you know, we really are seeing history being made right now. >> we could see that again again with that scotus same-sex marriage decision possibly coming down today, we will cover that here. thank you so much for your in sights. we are expecting more decisions from the high court later this morning. we'll bring you that live from the court especially if there are major developments. >> we are following more

force of nature but in her 80s, who is historic in her capacity of taking on the united states and domaey're protected and that they're recognized and that they have the dignity and integrity that they deserve. >> that's what it's all about. it's about the young people. they have to know who they are, they have to know who their families are, and cooper since he's started to understand things, never knew inequality. hundreds you mentioned earlier, even windsor, there have been hundreds who fought this fight long before we got involved. for us right now, we're so proud of our son. we're so proud that our son will have us both listed on his birth certificate. it's an amazing day. i'm surprised i'm not crying because your staff told us we won, and all i had to hear was the words we won. the emotion just continued to roll. >> were you prepared for it to go the other way? did you, in your heart, or did you take any mental preparation to think, you know what it might go the other way, and we might be dealt a defeat? >> i think as hopeful as we were the only time you have to prepare yourself f

doma was passed with huge majorities, signed into law, in the question i got was are you saying the huge number of senators and president clinton who voted, are you saying they were homophobes? in dealing with that, whether it is african-american civil rights or gay civil rights, you kind of have to dance a bit because the answer is yes, they probably were homophobic at the time. on the other hand, used the word and say that in that kind of creates this reaction you do not want to have. i kind of said no, i am not saying it's prejudice. it's based on a misunderstanding which was true. but i think your question arguably has the core of what may be motivating the court that they don't want to label anyone a bad person. lisa: ari, if i could follow up to what robbie said -- some argue that is the beauty actually the disparate impact argument. you are saying we know that you did not intend to discriminate. you are not a racist but you employ this policy that has a discriminatory effect. you didn't mean to do it but you did it so let's change that. some argue that is the beauty of the dispara

some of the most intense questioning i got in windsor was this view that i was expecting -- doma was passed with a huge majority and signed into law. the question i got is, are you saying the huge number that voted for it, are you saying they are homophobes? whether it is african-american civil rights or gay civil rights , you kind of have to dance of it. the honest answer is yes. some of them were probably homophobic. on the other hand, if you say that, it kind of creates a reaction you do not want to have. i kind of said no, i am not saying it is prejudiced. it is probably based on a misunderstanding, which i also think is true. i think your question gets to the core of what may be motivating the court in the sense that they do not want to label anyone a bad person or racist or prejudiced. ms. jawando: some argue that is the beauty of disparate impact. disparate impact says are not labeling anyone a racist. ms. rice: you are saying, you did not intend to discriminate. you are not a racist. but you employed a policy that has a discriminatory effect. you did not need to do it, but yo

11:00 hour he talked about the fact that you know through his administration they've done away with doma and don't ask, don't tell. you know the clinton administration historically instituted don't ask, don't tell and everybody thought that was a major step forward. and could you imagine a day of sitting here like we are now knowing that dom doesn't exist, neither does don't ask, don't tell and the supreme court is affirming marriage equality constitutional right coast to coast? >> i think you're exactly right. it's not only been a historic morning but it's been a very moving one, especially for those of us who have been involved in this effort nor a long time. i thought president obama's remarks were very moving and very appropriate for the leader of our country to come forward and say how proud he was of the country, how proud people who have been involved in this you know, need to be. it's also quite remarkable. you know very rarely do we have a decision from any court, even the supreme court, where all of a sudden, you know, the moment the decision comes down the lives of so many ame

you know, brazil is a major global player, and and i told president doma last night that the united states as powerful as we are, and as interested in as we are in solving a whole range of international issues, recognizes we can't do it alone. on issues like global health. we're not going to succeed unless we're working with brazil. and other major countries so that we can identify where there might be outbreak of a disease, how we prevent it from turning into a pandemic if we want to be countering terrorism on making sure we're reducing extreme poverty around the the world all of the major countries have to be involve in the that process. and brazil we considered to be an absolutely indispensable partner in these efforts. with respect to trust, i will say that, you know, president and rousseff have had an excellent relationship since she took office. i trust her completely. she's always been very candid and frank with me about the interest of the brazilian people. and how we can work together. she's delivered on what she's promised. when we met in panama we discussed for example that defe

doma was passed with huge majorities, signed into law, in the question i got was are you saying the huge number of senators and president clinton who voted, are you saying they were homophobes? in dealing with that, whether it is african-american civil rights or gay civil rights, you kind of have to dance a bit because the answer is yes, they probably were homophobic at the time. on the other hand, used the word and say that in that kind of creates this reaction you do not want to have. i, kind of said no, i am not , saying it's prejudice. it's based on a misunderstanding which was true. but i think your question arguably has the core of what may be motivating the court that they don't want to label anyone a bad person. lisa: ari, if i could follow up to what robbie said -- some argue that is the beauty actually the disparate impact argument. you are saying we know that you know you did not intend to discriminate. you are not a racist but you employ this policy that has a discriminatory effect. he didn't mean to do it but you did it so let's change that. some argue that is the beauty of

even a full repeal of doma would still leave individuals vulnerable to continued state discrimination which is why there must be a guaranteed right to access the benefits of marriage regardless of where a couple may reside. when my constituent and friend began dating in 196765, and accepted her proposal in 1967, she was not thinking about how the government would view her relationship. she was thinking about the joy and happiness that comes from beginning to shake -- shape a life with partner she loved. 40 years after that proposal, they were able to legally marry in canada. outside of this country and state they call home. no one in a free and just country should be forced to leave their home traveling away from friends and family across state lines, in order to get married. nor should anyone be faced with humiliation of being denied government benefits. the tragedy being barred from a partner hospital bedside or indignity of being refused any of the other benefits that come with marriage that millions of americans access every day because the state refuses to recognize their otherwi

until the doma issue. out of the law and precedent in many respects.ng that the laws in some states, the state you referring to that recognize only opposite sex marriage are pretextual? >> their nonrecognition laws are pretextual because the long-standing practice of the states is to recognize marriages that are so but i'll swear precisely because of the fundamental -- >> we have the distinction. what is the next post dramatic variation that exists in the marriage laws of the state? >> certainly interracial marriage when -- >> the present time. what is the next most dramatic difference of? >> i think if i could the anti-miscegenation laws actually are the closest analogy, but what's different between them if i could because the coast of justice sotomayor's question -- >> i asked a simple question. at the present time what is the next most dramatic variation in the marriage laws of the state? >> it probably is age. >> what's the range of? >> i think it goes from 13 to 18. as i said before the tradition of the state the issue does not come up that much b

states versus windsor on june 26 2013, which found that section 3 of the defense of marriage act, doma found it unconstitutional and determined that the federal government cannot discriminate against married, lesbian and gay couples for the purpose of determining federal benefits and protection. this is the supreme court of the united states of america. the same supreme court with conservative and liberal justices on it. we don't have to agree with everything the supreme court does, but i thank god that we respect the decisions. we can differ with them, even the justices themselves differ about various opinions but they respect the rulings of the court. and this supreme court has made such a ruling as it relates to the defense of marriage act. this resolution celebrates the 37 states and the district of columbia where it is now legal for same-sex couples to get married. literally, more than half of the states in the united states of america now permit same-sex couples to get married. more than half of the states. this means that this country is moving fward without a ruling from the su

we want to conclude the doma round and our outreach session also included the head of the w.t.o. and he asked us to support this process and at the same time we had intense discussions on bilateral free trade agreements. we want to conclude cita and also want to have the free trade agreement with the united states or to make progress there and make good progress there so we can come to an agreement and we see that the pacific, transpacific agreement falls to a conclusion when it comes to the united states and pacific area and we also believe that negotiations by europeans and the e.u. jeas free trade agreement should also be negotiated. and the g-7 if we talk about internal trade accounts for 50% of world trade. so that means that we have a major responsibility also with regard to supply chains, in other words we have to make sure that we have good working conditions not only in our own area, but we have to make sure that good working conditions prevail in the manufacturing countries. remember those terrible pictures from bangladesh and we are pleased that together with the i.l.o