>> edith's case, she's such a wonderful woman. look at the story there.omen who were together for decades, their whole life together. one got sick. the other one didn't walk away, she stayed and took care of her until she died. that's a commitment. that's a union. that's a marriage. and then a little bit after her wife died, she gets a letter from the federal government saying you are less than everybody else, we'll really make you feel that you're less than everybody else through making you pay over $300,000. it's not about the money. it's about being left out from the rest of the country at a particular moment when you need everyone and everything support. bigotry has failed and been eroded and taken down time and time again in this country. the progress we're making on marriage is remarkable, edith's bravery is part of what is compelling us forward. i believe we will see bigotry further taken down by what happens in the court. >> we should know from the court at the end of june when they come back with rulings on prop 8 and doma. i want to shift gears.

tell that to an 83-year-old woman, edith windsor, fought to get the case to the court. and the case that bears her name, the highest court in the land, edith marries her wife in canada, when the wife died, edith is forced to pay $300,000 in taxes, because the marriage was not recognized. the obama administration refused to defend it. a lawyer for the white house speaking today, drawing tough questioning from six of the nine justices. >> well, is what happened in 1996 o19 1996, and i'm going to quote from the house report is that congress decided to reflect the honor and to express moral disapproval of homosexual, is that what happened in 1996? what gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all with what the definition of marriage is. >> when it has 1100 laws, which in our society means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizen's day to day life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody. >> as justice kennedy

her name is edith windsor. she married her partner in canada in 2007 after a relationship and engagement that lasted four decades. doctors said at the time she was dying and she did die two years later leaving edith windsor everything. had u.s. federal law recognized their marriage, edith windsor would have paid no taxes on the inheritance. because of the same sex only law for marriage here in the u.s. the federal government demand more than $360,000. that's when edith windsor sued. the fundamental question. doesn't she deserve the same rights guaranteed by the constitution as every other married person? her fight is the case that made it all the way up to the supreme court. edith was all smiles outside of today's proceedings if you would like to listen to today's arguments in their entirety we have posted a link on the front page of foxnews.com. the earth beneath the home giving way as a landslide cuts a huge chunk out of some shoreline property. look at this. the backyard is now gone. folks in the area say th

edith windsor is 80 some years old. she's from new york state. her spouse died.he was stuck with a bill for estate taxes of something like $363,000 or so. so she basically said she wanted her money back and ended up going to court. and that's the genesis of the case. but it's not just state taxes, it's 1,000 or so different benefits that you get as a result of marriage that are -- effect people in states where they have same sex marriage. and the question of course is whether those people ought to be able to get those benefits or not. >> if i could just have one point here, the reason this case is unusual from a procedural point of view is that she's suing and saying i want my money back. the federal government is saying, you're right, you should get your money back. doma is unconstitutional and the justices are saying why are we dealing with this case when the two main parties agree with each other? why is this a lawsuit at all? and that was a hard question for the lawyers to answer. >> and also important to say the last thing is, and you know this suzanne, a sm

that's the kind of equality, but regardless of what the court decides, edith and thea are still goingo love each other and still going to be a couple. >> the thing is that edith and t he a don't want separate but equal treatment under the law when it comes to civil unions or marriage and that's what the whole thing is about. >> it's not separate and equal. that's the whole conversation. >> absolutely. >> there's more than 1,000 laws that are separating, you know, same-sex couples from heterosexual couples who are in the same comparable relationship, more than 1,000 laws. essentially i pay no taxes for no other reason than my sexual orientation, no other reason how i was born so it's not even separate but equal. it's separate but unequal. >> and while the entire nation is watching, millions may be directly affected by the decision of nine people in washington. you'll hear from one of those couples next. with the bing it on challenge to show google users what they've been missing on bing. let's bing it on. [fight bell: ding, ding] how many here are google users? what if i was to tell yo

>> i am edith st. john and i have lived at 30 mason street since 2009 it is a condo and we own our apartment and so we are not going anywhere either. this would be a huge help. >> if you could speak into the mic. >> okay. this would be a huge help for the neighborhood. just having a full storefront instead of a blank wall where loitering loiter. having people making it illegal to loiter in front of that storefront would help the neighborhood. i hope that you approve this, thank you. >> thank you, ma'am. >> next speaker? >> hi, i'm quan sxim also a resident and i am also a urban planner and so i invested in the neighborhood knowing about the issues, but thinking about the potential. and knowing that mid market, efforts that the city is going through. and i wonder, you know, if you really as a city want to push this, this is the beginning. you know, you are starting to get residents, but you also need the businesses. and you know, and right now it is an empty space. there is no tax benefits that the city

edith windsor married her wife in canada. her wife died, windsor was forced to pay $360,000 in inheritance tax, because her marriage, her legal marriage, was not recognized by the federal authorities under doma. lower courts have ruled against doma. the obama administration has refused to defend it. a lawyer for house republicans speaking for it today heard tough questions from six of the nine justices. >> well is what happened in 1996, and i'm going to quote from the house report here. is that congress decided to reflect and honor moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality. is that what happened in 1996? what gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is? >> when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the federal government is -- intertwined with the citizens' daily life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custod

and edith windsor, who everybody just saw, she was married in new york state. and her partner died. her wife died. and she had to pay $363,000 in federal income tax that she would not have had to pay if the federal government, the internal revenue service, had recognized their marriage. so she argued that the defense of marriage act by penalizing same sex marriage people involved in same sex marriages, that was a violation of their constitutional right. that was the case argued today. and it was a good day on balance i would say for edith windsor's side. >> joe, describe for us what was the most compelling moment inside the courtroom today. >> there were several compelling moments, but i would say there was the whole discussion about the defense of marriage act and the justifications or reasons for the government passing the law. the attorney who was defending the defense of marriage act maintained throughout that it was about uniformity. for example, creating a situation so that soldiers who move from bases from state to state wouldn't be confused about what their benefits are. but

what edith wanted was equal treatment not special treatment.an equal right. it struck down equal in the brown v. board case. we don't want separate, but equal. we just want equal, nothing more, nothing less. >> victoria, this week we had senator portman talking about changing his position in effect because a member of his family came out and that affected his view. is this, in a sense, a demographic movement that however much people may oppose is literally like a wave that will eventually sweep over? >> martin, earlier this week the pugh center came out with a poll showing that a third of people who are now in favor of gay marriage change their position. so they had previously been against it and now they're for it and what happens is when you get to know somebody on a personal level the stereo typical contexts start to fade away and you start to look at that person as who they are and you don't look at the stigma attacked to their group. rob portman, classic case and it's a textbook case of intergroup contact theory where the more contact you

edith windssor was in court to hear the arguments. doyle: justice anthony kennedy who is usually a swing vote seemed most concerned that this was a case of the federal government moving into an area that's really a state area. >> right. there were two arguments against the law. one is that it's discrimination, it's treating same-sex couples and opposite sex couples differently. the federal government is. but secondly, and i think the argument that seemed to intrigue him more, is that the definition of marriage has never been something the federal government is engaged in. questions about who gets the divorce, adoption, children, all these family law questions have traditionally been for the states to decide and that bugged justice kennedy the most. if he is going to vote to strike down doma and we agree he will, i think that's the reason he'll use. doyle: that was the first case. the second case before the court was a challenge to california's proposition eight, the state referendum in 2008, that prohibited same-sex marriage. now that

the case that is going in front of the supreme court is edith, 83 years old.nt 40 years with her partner thea. if thea -- edith windsor would not have paid the $600,000 in estate taxes she had to pay when her partner died. that's what we are talking about. that's the kind of equality. regardless of what the court decides, edith and dhea are still going to love each other and still going to be a couple. >> the thing is thatied itds and thea don't want to separate but equal treatment under the law when it comes to civil universityions or marriage. that's what this whole thing about. >> it is not separate and equal. that's the whole conversation. it is not. more than 1,000 laws that are separating, you know, same-sex couples and heterosexual couples that are in the same comparable relationship. more than 1,000 laws. essentially i pay more taxes for no other reason than sexual orientation. no other reason than how i was born. not separate but equal. separate and unequal. >> i want to play this because i know that you want to address this. we had an e-mail exchange

. >> edith and her partner work together for 44 years, and a married couple. as the surviving spouse, she was unable to claim a merrill tax deduction. it bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. advocates will argue that the law is unconstitutional. new york who treats all marriages equally. >> of the freedom to marry is a question that he's to be addressed. peoplerong to exclude for marriage, and america is ready for the supreme court to do the right then. insuring a ban on the far constitutions. they say it should not be the final arbiter. >> the reality is that it is not inevitable. >> same-sex couples should be able to get married. >> they won the cabo -- gay vote by 3 to 1. >> they are full and equal citizens. that includes marriage. for days been forming now, the spectators will be witnesses to arguments that could set a landmark in the civil rights history. >> a test flight for the 7873 minor went according to plan. worldwide standards, fleets have been granted -- is grounded since january. the sinking of the naval vessel, they s

then, a statement from edith w indsor. >> good afternoon.today's story tells a lesson of why we have a constitution. to bind us together as citizens of the one nation, all of whom are guaranteed to the equal protection of the law. that is no one individual personifies the concept of equal protection than my client. her latets, she met spouse in the early 1960's. they were engaged to each other in 1967. take a moment and think about that. in 1967. that was two years before the stone wall movement that led to the modern concept. think about the self-esteem, the courage, the bravery, and the self-respect it took for two 1967 to become engaged. of her truly heroic part life is what happened for the next 40 years. when people get married to each other, they give a traditional marriage vow. that marriage vow is to have and to hold, to love in sickness and in health until death do us part. 12 years into their relationship, unfortunately her partner develop a terrible disease. if she had -- as she described it, the diagnosis happened to the both of

edith windsor received a hero's welcome when she emerged, saying, it's time to take a stand for marriage equality. and abc's terry moran was there. >> reporter: it's a classic american story. sometimes the big cases come to the supreme court out of conflicts between the states or battles between the branches of government and sometimes one american walks up these steps seeking justice. that's what happened today. [ cheers and applause ] >> reporter: 83 and radiant. edie windsor had her day in court. and what a day it was for her. this woman, born in the 1920s, has become a folk hero to countless young americans. >> you guys are talking freely. i'd have been hiding in a closet ten years ago. >> reporter: her case arises

edith windsor is a plaintiff in the case. >> "they were certainly direct. they asked all the right questions. but i felt, though, i didn't feel any hostility okay, or any sense of inferiority, you know - what do these people want? i felt, were were very respected and i think, i think it's gonna be good.' >> catherine: what's good for edith is not good for others. one clergyman says if the defense of marriage act is shot down -- he's worried about colleagues bring forced to perform same sex ceremonies. >> "military chaplains, civilian chaplains who are under orders by federal authorities as well as other clergy required by law to uphold the constitution and in this case may have their authority to solemnize marriages held in doubt." >> catherine: long after court wrapped up today. people stayed outside the supreme court building.saying they wanted to be a part of legal history >> pam: the defense of marriage act marked the beginning of a decades=long debate over same sex unions. many of its original supporters now say it was a bad idea. the year was 1994. sa

edith wilson was it. they called the regency, lasted from september 1919 until january 1920.e was stricken probably with a stroke. there's some controversy over what caused it, but in this period, initially the fact he'd been secret even from the vice president, his stock your new commish e-mail. people in the cabinet figured out something was wrong because they would come by and demand to see the president and no one would be allowed in to see him. she would listen and then go into the room and relay what she said he told her. [laughter] in some cases, they figured that couldn't be so because they didn't think they would decide this on what the issue is. historians are uncertain about whether she was trained wedding wishes or whether she was doing what she thought was best. there's some evidence he should've listened more carefully if an issue is running the country because his most important priority was the league of nations ratified and it came down to a close vote in the senate majority came to me within two advising you to compromise but the republican isolationists as

. >> the united states versus windsor, that is the 83-year-old lesbian edith windsor who took her challenge of the defense of their attack to the supreme court four years ago after her spouse died. today we look at the remarkable story. in 1962, soon got engaged and had to wait 40 years before they could marry. >> edie and thea spent four years together, in sickness and in health, just like any other married couple. for the federal government to protect their marriage did that exist is unfair and an american and unconstitutional. >> we will hear excerpts of the film, "edie & thea: a very long engagement." we will play part of wednesday's landmark oral arguments before the supreme court. we will also host a discussion on same-sex marriage and the future of the lpg -- lgbt rights. all of that and more coming up. this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. afghan police say five civilians, including four children, were killed in a night raid by afghan and international special forces in the eastern province of klo -- logar. while the afghan defense mi

. >> at the center of this, 83-year-old edith windsor. >> i am an out lesbian who sued the united states of america. >> doma barred the irs from recognizing her marriage. >> recognizing marriage to her partner of 44 years. >> they were making a stranger of this person i lived with and loved. >> the court's liberals were strongly attacking doma. >> i think there are five votes to strike it down. >> just like yesterday, the hearing drew demonstrators. >> we are no longer satisfied living in the shadows of freedom. >> doma reeks of big government. >> this is about discrimination. >> i believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. >> house republicans are defending the law. >> what a stale role to play in life. >> marriage is the union of one man and one woman. >> republicans knew that doma is not constitutional. >> the compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. >> this is going to happen, it is just the direction the culture is heading. >> one of the fastest changing trends we have seen on a social matter. >> it is remarkable the speed at which this has moved. >> doma was

. >> afterwards, edith windsor said it went beautifully and her late spouse would be pleased. >> today is a spectacular event for me. i mean, a lifetime kind of event. and i know that the spirit of my late spouse is right here watching and listening and would be very proud and happy where we've come to. >> today's case came just a day after oral arguments on california's proposition eight. justices both liberal and conservative seemed reluctant to use it as the basis for sweeping national change. this case on the other hand could be just the opposite. jeffrey toobin was inside the court again today. he joins us from outside the court. so we know everything comes with the caveat that the supreme court can surprise us and is hard to predict. you say that doma is in trouble. that a majority of justices seem inclined to throw it out? why is that? >> reporter: because of what anthony kennedy said. the four democratic members were all clearly hostile to the defense of marriage act. where were they going to get the fifth vote. anthony kennedy is the only likely possibility. but repeatedly tod

all eyes were on 83-year-old edith windsor. >> i am today a lesbian who sued the united states of americah is kind of overwhelming for me. >> reporter: she's challenges the defense of marriage act which denies federal benefits to same sex marriage couples. >> in the midst of my grief, i realized that the federal government was treating us as strangers and i pay this state tax. >> reporter: in court, justices attacked the 1996 law and the obama administration refusal to defend it. >> i'm wondering if we're living in this new world where the attorney general can simply decide it's unconstitutional but it's not so unconstitutional that i'm not willing to enforce it. if we're in this new world, i don't want these cases. >> reporter: the legal team defending doma told the court congress passed the law. the u.s. solicitor general said doma was based on moral disapproval and aimed at disfranchising same sex couples. >> as far as i can tell political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case. >> the fact of the matter is, no other group in recent history has been subjec

>> did you hear that, edith? do you know they're bringing around for lunch?porter: it wasn't that long ago, bigotry against gay americans was open and accepted as "all in the family" dramatized and challenged. >> just because a guy is sensitive and he's an intellectual and he wears glasses, you make him out a queer. >> i never said a guy who wears glasses is a queer. a guy who wears glasses is queer. a guy who wears glasses is four eyes, a guy who is a fag is a queer. >> will and grace, gray's anatomy, "glee" and "modern family." they all feature gay characters in lead roles. naturally. . >> mitchell's mother has a problem with me. >> are you guys together? >> of course not. he's gay. >> and she's married. >> you're married? >> you're gay? >> hello, how many straight guys do you know who wear vests? >> hollywood is also reflecting something deeper. our news poll shows 58% of americans now support gay marriage. in 2004, just 32% favored it. politicians know what that means. from president obama -- >> i think same-sex couples should be able to get married. >> t

. >> edith windsor was slapped with a $300,000 tax bill when her same-sex partner died. i have sued the united states of america, which is kind of overwhelming for me. ,> plenty of people oppose it too. i think it would be a mistake to say this is entirely a generational conflicts. there are many young people who still stand for what we know as the timeless configuration of marriage between a man man and a woman. ends two days of deliberations at the supreme court. ,hey must wait a little longer a couple of months, for the decision to come down. al jazeera, washington. in poland, five people have died from hypothermia. in britain, thousands left without power. farmers are struggling with stranded livestock. forecasters say temperatures are unlikely to change until the end of next month. in southern china, a man has died after being swallowed by a 20-meter sinkhole. the 25-year-old worked as a security guard at a residential complaint -- compound. police believe the sinkhole was caused by illegal digging at a nearby construction site. she is a first lady and global style

reports say edith ramirez has been chosen by president obama. ramirez has served as an ftc commissioner since 2010, where she is said to have pushed for robust competition and innovation in the high-tech sector. she replaces fellow democrat jon leibowitz, who resigned in january. walmart's chief administrative officer is checking out. tom mars plans to leave the company march 13th, after nearly 10 years. the wall street journal reports that mars oversaw the retailer during a 2012 bribery investigation. last year, walmart was accused of bribing officials in mexico in order to improve business in that country. walmart has declined to say why mars is leaving. major retailers hit a rut in the stock market. shares of sears, khols and jc penney all fell yesterday following earnings news. sears faired the best with earnings that doubled from last year. khol's' numbers were down 8% but managed to come in better-than-expected, while jc penny reported a loss of $552 million. here's a prediction about what's next for the retailer from margaret bogenrief of

leaves of the supreme court is a very inexact science but based on what you heard today, do you think edith windsor could win her case? >> is he has reason to be optimistic. the second day was much easier to get a fix on the first. there did seem to be a majority of the justices who were uncomfortable with the idea that the federal government and the united states should deny federal benefits to people married in the nine states where same-sex marriage is allowed. that's of course a much smaller, more moderate and much less ambitious question than the one the court considered yesterday which is whether states that don't have same-sex marriage should be required as a constitutional matter to have it. >> sticking with today's case, president clinton, who signed the defense of marriage act into law now says it should be struck down. is the court supposed to take changing public and indeed presidential opinion into account? >> the justices would say that they don't pay attention to public opinion. but history suggests that they do. they don't like to get out too far ahead of public opinion. and

a woman by the name of edith lost her partner of many years.had been married in canada and that marriage was recognized in new york state and when her partner died, edith bought a high tax bill for state taxes that she wouldn't have gotten if her partner had been a man. newspapers reporting this morning she will be in the court. >> host: i talked to one of her lawyers yesterday and she will be there. >> guest: she will be there and i think that's pretty exciting for the people on that side. >> host: who will be arguing for that site? >> guest: a woman named roberta kaplan from new york will be representing edith windsor. we have a long line of the beginning with a woman named vicki jackson who is a harvard law professor and a supreme court appointed specifically to our view the case cannot be decided on the merits because the federal government no longer is defending the section 3 of the defense of marriage act and a bipartisan republican dominated group of house members have come in to defend it, and the question is can we do it, do they have

thank you, edith, for your question. you see a trend here. we do have questions from a 15-year-old that i think is important to take as we wind down the meeting and then -- technology. >> lagan >> hi, there, my name is logan, i'm a teenager, i'm 15 years old (inaudible) i was thinking, if you are a hunter you have this system and if you are in law enforcement like a police officer or navy seal you have this, that would include background checks, background checks i think are -- if everyone knows how their mental state is, it will help a lot. could you answer that question. >> i will say on the background checks, that should really be what they refer to as a no-brainer. if you buy a gun, you ought to be checked out. we ought to make sure that people who are criminals or people who don't have the mental capacity to properly use a gun, we should keep them out of the hands of those folks and that's the first line of defense. and that should be just about everyone should have to go through that. there's a lot of work being done to figure out if th

. >> tuvimos a esta actriz excelente cantante guapisima mujer, edith marquez. >> mil gracias los admirospeto muchísimo a nivel personal así que gracias por la invitacion. >> te magradecemos la precencia, la semana que entra, en la hora pico! >> (música) >> (música) >> (música) >> (♪)()(♪)() >>> vamos al punto hugo chávez está muerto, y cuál es el futuro de venezuela, tenemos una entrevista con maría elena salinas. >>> y también desde venezuela está el conocido periodista nelson bocaranda que tenía información oficial de hugo chávez,nos habla de dónde sacaba las exclusivas. >>> tenemos una entrevista con el ex gobernador de la florida, jeff bush que habla con teresa rodríguez, de su nuevo libro "inmigration wars". >>> la ciudad de los Ángeles decidde quién será su nuevo alcalde, con nosotros está eric garzetti y nos cuenta cómo piensa ganar el voto hispano. >>> tambiÉn maría antonieta collins nos dice cómo va el proceso de elección del próximo papa y también si podemos ver un papa africano o de latinoamérica, comenzamos ♪. >>> vamos al punto con jorge ramos ♪. >>> vamos al punto hugo chá

those couples live in a state like massachusetts where gay marriage is legal according to petitioner edith windsor the act's ban on federal recognition of state law violates her fifth amendment equal protection rights bill clinton by the way now opposes the defense of marriage act that he signed into law the two cases are the supreme court's biggest since last year's inquiry into obamacare and have broad cultural residence at a time when america majority of americans have finally come around to supporting marriage equality protesters supporters of gay supporters and opponents of gay marriage alike have held large rallies all day just hundreds of feet from where the court's nine justices are considering the fate of prop eight and doma recordings and transcripts from today's hearings suggest that the debate is as contentious as ever justice antonin scalia the most conservative justice pressed opponents of prop eight to pinpoint exactly when discrimination against gay couples became unconstitutional. we did it constitutional. to exclude homosexual couples from marriage seventeen. eighteen six

who is édith piaf? correct.ers for $1,000, please. [ beep ] and the him in this case is john lennon. back to you, jennifer. the 18th century for $200, please. back to you, jennifer. lloyd. what is piracy? yes. letters & words for $200. lloyd. what is alabama? correct. letters, $400. lloyd.

a woman by the name of edith windsor lost her partner of many years. they have been married in canada and that marriage was recognized in new york state and when her partner died, edith windsor got socked with a pretty high tax bill for state taxes that she would not have gotten if her partner had been -- >> host: the newspaper is reporting this morning that she will be in court today. >> guest: yeah, i talked to one of her lawyers yesterday and she will be there. her health i understand has been a bit touchy but she is ready to roll and will be there and i think that's pretty exciting for people on that site. >> host: who will be arguing for that site? >> guest: a woman by the name of roberta kaplan from new york feared she will be representing edith windsor. we have a long lineup beginning with a woman by the name is vicki jackson it was a harvard law professor for the supreme court to argue that the case could not be decided on the merits because the federal government no longer is defending this section 3 of the defense of marriage act and a bipart

new york,oman from she will be representing edith windsor. long line up with vicki jackson, a harvard law professor. the supreme port appointed her to argue the case cannot be subsided on the merits because the federal government no longer is defending section three of the defense of marriage act. a group of house members have come in to defend it. the question is, can they do that? , people we're talking are heading into the court right now. 7:40.only about do they have to sit there? guest: many have lined up since last thursday. eventually, they will let them an out of the cold. once we get to this point, they start queuing up inside the building. host: who will be arguing on the other side? guest: the main advocate against the federal government is a man by the name of paul, who many of your viewers are familiar with. he was the lead lawyer challenging the obama healthcare law last year. he is a former general under george w. bush. he will be representing the house members, the republican dominated house members. bipartisan legal action gr

those couples live in a state like massachusetts where gay marriage is legal according to petitioner edith windsor x. ban on federal recognition of state law violates fur fifth amendment equal protection rights judges in previous lower court cases of agreed with her and declare the law unconstitutional so it seems like a simple yes or no case right not so much or the weird things about the doma case is that the justice department the federal agency that normally represents the executive branch of government in cases like this openly disagrees with the act and has decided not to defend its. constitutionality but since doma is still the law of the land and the justice department still technically enforces that someone or something has to 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 in the house republicans are using taxpayer dollars to fight for a law that the justice department and most of the country for that matte

. >> what's odd about this case is that the plaintiff, edith windsor, who had to pay a large amount of taxes because the internal revenue service doesn't recognize her marriage. and the federal government -- whoa. >> jimmy: you have to have an umbrella. it's raining men out there. if you're a facebook user, you probably have been seeing this image a lot over the past few days. red equals time. logo of the equal rights campaign. they made a special one and asked people who support same sex marriage to make it their profile picture. changing your profile picture to support something you believe in is the least you can do. literally, it is the least you can do. you almost did nothing. but instead, you did just slightly more than nothing. even so, it's kind of nice to see people finally posting something on facebook besides a sandwich they ate or their feet on vacation. facebook has been a forum for a lot of debate on the subject of equal rights this week. people get very passionate and sometimes insulting when it comes to this sort of thing. which gave me the idea. can you tell if someone

all eyes were on 83-year-old edith windsor. >> i am today a lesbian who sued the united states of america, which is kind of overwhelming for me. >> reporter: she's challenges the defense of marriage act which denies federal benefits to same sex marriage couples. >> in the midst of my grief, i realized that the federal government was treating us as strangers and i pay this state tax. >> reporter: in court, justices attacked the 1996 law and the obama administration refusal to defend it. >> i'm wondering if we're living in this new world where the attorney general can simply decide it's unconstitutional but it's not so unconstitutional that i'm not willing to enforce it. if we're in this new world, i don't want these cases. >> reporter: the legal team defending doma told the court congress passed the law. the u.s. solicitor general said doma was based on moral disapproval and aimed at disfranchising same sex couples. >> as far as i can tell political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case. >> the fact of the matter is, no other group in recent history has been

. >> to understand why the specific case made it to the supreme court you have to learn more about edithinsler. when her partner died in new york where they lived same-sex marriage was not legally recognized she got stuck with the bill, a tax bill that would have been much smaller if her partner was her spouse. she sued to over turn the defense of marriage act after years of legal battles here we are. >> they touch every aspect of life. your partner is sick. social security. it is pervasive. it's not a federal sphere it's not only a tax question. as justice kennedy said 1100 stat tuts. it effects every area of life. >> in defense of doma former solicitor paul clemens said when the bill was being considered back in the mid 90s lawmakers triple checked with the justice department to make sure it was constitutional and they were assured that it was. many fast forward to this. we saw same-sex marriage is an emotional issue for supporters and critics. now we must wait until june to find out how they do this. >> new it is time to take a look at who is talking. >> they are taking issue with the

. >> edith windsor and thea spire got engaged years ago. it's wednesday, march 27th, i'm alex wagner. and this is "now." >> i am today an out lesbian who just sued the united states of america. >> the supreme court cracks open doma. the skim milk marriage. chad griffin helps us dissect today's developments. >> you are serious? you want to equate interracial marriage to a homosexual marriage? >> susie orman will break down what will happen when the right wing realizes it's wrong. >> i'm not concerned about the democratic party. i'm concerned about the people whose lives will be impacted by it. >> but will he make the moves? don't call it a comeback. >> toss the political scripts. >> sarah palin releases a new video with one message, 2014. >>> and a shocking report on the culture of violence in the military. no, not the one on the battlefield. the one on women. >> in 1965, edie windsor meat thea spire at a new york city restaurant. she would later tell the times that they danced so much that night. they fell in love, spent 44 years together a

and one of the great things that happened once with edith ann, i'm in a restaurant and a whole tablelled, lily, lily and put their napkins on their heads so the points hung down like this and said "and that's the truth." all these middle- aged people. >> a fan right there. loves it all. >> anyway, so that kind of good thing always happens, you know. >> that is great. well, thank you for coming in today. "malibu country" airs tomorrow night, 8:30, 7:30 central on abc, and sam and lara put their spring cleaning skills to the test and found out how much sheila dug out of our cash couch. [ cheers and applause ] >>> welcome back. the cash couch challenge. she was remarkable in 30 seconds. who knee she could get all that up by herself in 30 seconds. let's see. we have a tote a are you ready? >> i'm ready. >> life-changing figure. it starts with a 1 and ends with 83 and whiles with $156.83. that's amazing. that's amazing and well done out of you who just stood there and innocently watched as she got it done in 30 seconds. sam champion, i'm looking in your general direction. >> well, all rig