mr. bravin of "the wall street journal." go ahead. caller: it's my opinion every person has a duty to create a moral foundation to stand on. i understand the supreme court has for now said that same-sex marriage is fine. my concern is what about a person that is born with tendencies to be a pedophile? do we then say in 30 or 40 years, well, they were born that way and that's their preference, so who are we to say that they can't follow that? and i heard you say yes well, children are protected under their law but i understand that. but when will children not be protected under other laws? when will we say, well, that was 40 years ago we now know better? we just keep making accommodations for our convenience. our morals. they are deteriorating as a country, as a whole. and when do we stick by these morals and say no, this is what i believe and i'm going to stick by what i believe? guest: this is really, you know, a good question, one raised by the dissenters in the sense that well, if you are, you know, if these are your values now, wh

bravin mr. guest: -- mr. bravin? guest: that is what the majority said today, in the 21st century, after a long history of repression shame, enforced silence of the gay community now they have been able to express themselves, live more openly, be true to their identities, and they were a part of society and it is too late to deny them this right brings them into the full umbrella of constitutional protection. so basically the court said this social battle is over. that is pretty much what they had to say, that people can continue to sincerely believe that it is wrong and immoral, i just cannot enforce that morality through the law. host: from lebanon, ohio. up next. caller: i want to congratulate you and the producer who scheduled mr. bravin. he should get a break. guest: what about me? caller: he is quite an expert. first, i want to say i can support the windsor decision and not support this decision. let me make this -- my case. windsor said a state like ohio can go about -- we actually had a constitutional amendme

mr. bravin?uest: that's what the majority said, that today in the 21st century after a long history of repression and shame and help forced silence of the gay community, now they had been able to express themselves and live more openly and be true to their identities and they were a part of society and it's too late to deny them this right which brings them into the full umbrella of constitutional protection. so basically the court said this social battle is over. that's pretty much what they had to say. that, you know, people can continue to sincerely believe that it's wrong and immoral they just can't enforce that morality through the law. host: from lebanon ohio. mario is up next. caller: good morning. first i want to congratulate you and probably the producer who scheduled mr. bravin should get a raise because he's really spot on. host: what about me? caller: he's quite the expert. first i want to say i can support the windsor decision and not support this decision and let me make my case. wi