if you go back to the hardwick decision. >> what's the hardwick decision? >> infamous decision where the court voted 5-4 to uphold the criminalization of homosexual relations. >> when was this? >> back in 1986. and that was the case where powell said he never met a gay person. >> he said that the a closeted gay person. >> that's right. his clerk was gay. but you see how that opinion just sort of monolithic image of the gay community that comes out. and how much we've changed. now the court talks about these are people with children, these are people who have lost loved ones in one state, people who have married in another, they're no longer this monolithic group. they're human beings. you want to pick someone that really conveys that, that these are individual people that are suffering from these laws in very real way. and i think they zoosucceeded i doing that. throughout the filings they came back in the court trying to put a face on these rights. it's not an abstraction any more. not just about the plaintiff, jim obergefell. it's about the way the commun

they tried to do it to us with bowers v hardwick with a federal marriage amendment and every time we have fought and we have won. and today we win again. it is a giant step forward but our work isn't done and this is a tidal wave. we are going to get employment protection and housing protection. we're going to beat the hiv epidemic once and for all. we are going to take care of our seniors and youth and we are going to win. have a great pride weekend. [ applause and cheers ] >> and because we have an abundance of riches on the board of supervisors, we want to hear from a couple more providing also tremendous leadership, supervisor david campos. [ applause and cheers ] >> thank you everyone. thank you to the elected family. it's great to see the judges. i don't know for those of you, um, who are my age, you know, i was watching this morning with my husband as the opinion was being issued and i never thought in my lifetime that i would see that. and so i would like to give a brief moment of silence as we think about harvey milk, as we think about all the people that we know fought for

in 1996 there was a challenge to a sodomy law in georgia in a case of bauers versus hardwick and theourt in a 5-4 vote upheld the sodomy statute and essentially said what john the caller said was that this is a practice that's been disapproved for many, many centuries and of course states can criminalize it. essentially that moral disapproval of someone else's lifestyle is sufficient to make it a crime. in 2003 in a case called laurens versus texas, the supreme court overruled bauers versus hardwick, an opinion by justice kennedy that relied heavily on the dissent in 1986 and it said that the becausers case was wrong when decided and is wrong today and that moral disapproval is not enough of a justification to put someone in jail. and by taking moral disapproval out of the legitimate state interest that can justify discrimination essentially the dye was cast for what happened on friday because essentially john's point is really -- that is the real, i would say, core foundation of opposition to same-sex marriage is the moral disapproval of homosexuality often justified by biblical phr

you have to remember in terms of what jeff was talking about, back in the days of the hardwick decision where the supreme court up held the ruling he said he'd never met a gay person. he said that to his clerk who turned out to be gay. it shows you the tremendous transformation that occurred. these justices are a part of a new generation. very ironic that the one that has led the way is justice kennedy who bridges the generations in this sense. >> ronald reagan appointee. >> that's right. and this is not just a legacy this is a legacy that will last really for generations for kennedy and i think he knows it. but he writes incredibly passionately and deeply about marriage and the importance it is for two individuals regardless of their sexual orientation. that's what gives this opinion such historic weight is not just its conclusion but the depth of the analysis that comes to all these opinions by justice kennedy. >> there's been a lot of people attempting to read the tea leaves, jonathan turley about how justice kennedy who was really the swing vote on this how he was going to vote. "th

in 2003, a case called lawrence versus texas, the supreme court overruled bowers versus hardwick, an opinion by justice kennedy that relied heavily on the dissent from 1986 and it said that the bowers case was wrong when it was decided, is wrong today, and that moral disapproval is not enough of a justification to put someone in jail. like taking moral disapproval out of the legitimate state interests that can justify his commendation, essentially the die was cast for what happened on friday because what -- essentially, john's point, that is the real, core foundation of same-sex marriage -- moral disapproval of homosexuality often justified by biblical phrases and similar sources. once the supreme court has said that that is not enough, you need to have some other reason some reason that is beyond a religious belief or your own morality, then it became very difficult for states to justify this type of discrimination because from justice kennedy the right was not something as base as the right to commit criminal acts of sodomy. the right was that of the individual to be who he or she