that's harmful. >> so olson and griffin met on olson's turf. one of the first things you see when you walk through the door in this office is a picture of ronald reagan. >> ronald reagan. he was a wonderful, wonderful man to know and to work for. and, of course, president bush is here, too. >> i knew i was in foreign territory. i was in the office just enough to know how republican of a world ted olson comes from, and my world could not be more different than that. >> but they were on the same page on marriage. so weeks later, the deal was sealed here at reiner's home in california. was this kind of like on out-of-body experience for you? here you are sitting to ted olson, whom you probably regarded as -- >> the enemy. >> rob reiner said, he's the devil. >> now olson is seen as the devil by some in his own party like legal scholar ed waylan. >> i felt he was betraying the constitutional principles he took an oath to stand for. >> some critics wonder whether there's something more personal to this crusade. people have said, particularly conserva

that's harmful. >> olson and griffin met on olson's terms. one of the first things you see when you walk through the door is a picture of ronald reagan. >> yeah, he was a wonderful man to know and to work for. and of course, president bush, too. >> i knew i was in foreign territory. i was in the office just enough to know how republican of a world ted olson comes from, and my world could not be more different than that. >> but they were on the same page on gay marriage, and so the deal was sealed at his home here in california. >> here you are sitting and talking to ted olson whom you probably regarded as -- >> yeah, the enemy. rob said he was the devil. >> now olson is seen as the devil in his own party. >> i felt he was betraying the constitutional principles he took an oath to stand for. >> people said, particularly conservatives that were stunned that you took this case at first, oh, he must have somebody in his family who is gay. >> i am a little disspretressed that because it's saying you must have a motive other than principle. looking

and olson's point was we don't keep track of the constitution like a clock. what the point is is that it's unconstitutional today to discriminate against gay people in this way. that was what both sides were getting at in that argument. >> that's why so many conservatives have turned on ted olson, because they believe that he ought to be the scalia on this and have an originalist interpretation of the constitution and in this courtroom today, he seemed to be saying something very, very different. >> yeah. fascinating day. another one tomorrow. gloria, appreciate it. jeff toobin as well. the idea of equal rights for gays and lesbians as civil rights -- and civil rights being interchangeable or compatible has not always been so. that notion is growing in no smart part due to veterans of the fight to end racial segregation speaking out, people like congressman john lewis and civil rights legend julian bond, who joins me tonight. mr. bond, i'm wondering what you make first of all of what you've heard today kind of coming out of the court. >> well, you know, you c

olson. >> thank you before chief justice, and may it please the court. i know that you will want me to spend a moment or two addressing the standing question. but before i do that, i thought that it would be important for this court to have proposition 8 put in context what, it does. it walls off gay and lesbians from marriage, the most important relation in life, according to this court, thus stigmatizing a class of californians based upon their status and labeling their most cherished relationships as second rate, different, unequal, and not okay. >> mr. olson, i cut off your friend before he could get into the merits, so i think it's only fair -- >> i was trying to avoid that, your honor. >> i know that. i think it's only fair to treat you the same. perhaps you could address your jurisdictional argument? >> the lawyers on both sides today, both trying to start with the big picture, with the implications of today's case, should gay people in america be allowed to get married? is it right or wrong? constitutional or unconstitutional for states to ban th

olson. this case was properly -- is now properly before the court and was properly granted, even if, even if, your honor, one could defend the specific judgment below for the ninth defense that i haven't heard offered to this court. oficial redefinition marriage even in -- even if it can be limited to california, is well worthy of this court's attention, particularly, your honor, as it come from a single district court judge in a single jurisdiction. i would also like -- >> i think that begs your -- mr. olson doesn't really focus on this. if the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer? >> because, your honor -- >> we let issues perk, and so let racial segregation perk for 50 years from 1898 to 1954. >> your honor, it is hard to -- >> and now we are only talking about, at most, four years. >> it is hard to imagine a case that would be better, or more thoroughly, i should say, at least, brief

ted olson the bush versus gore debate. it's ted olson and boyce who he beat are both on the pro gay rights side of this case tomorrow. but it will be ted olson, the conservative one, who will actually standed up tomorrow in court and make the case, along side the solicitor general. it's kind of the definition of heavy hitters, right, when it comes to supreme court oral arguments? the solicitor general and the last solicitor general from the other side of the aisle. wow. now, that's the pro gay rights side. the anti-gay rights side, the other side of the case tomorrow, will also be argued in tomorrow's arguments the lawyer for the anti-gay side will get equal full-time and the lawyer on that side of the case is a man named -- chuck cooper. chuck cooper. chuck cooper. to the google, right? on the first page of google search results for chuck cooper, you will not find what you are looking for. the first results is this very nice website, i think we've got it, yes, for the broadway actor named chuck cooper. he is very talented

that when the fourteenth amendment came into being so if he was trying to make a point i think ted olson. significantly shot it down by saying the supreme court will change with society just because the supreme court is behind in recognizing certain rights they have been there all the time prolly not just the supreme court american american not just even american jurisprudence draw i mean sometimes have to catch up this year in court needs so if so if the supreme court with the fourteenth amendment made interracial marriage legal and yes eight hundred sixty eight but then yet another fifty and yet years oh it took forever i mean you know it was nine hundred sixty what sixty seven sixty seven sixty eight the other thing . where where that was struck down and so in them in the meantime you had plessy versus ferguson and then you had broad the board reversing that in all but also that the supreme court justices. on the whole indicated they really want to take the slowly that it was perfectly fine with them this go with the more conservative justices that it considering this maybe we're movi

on the other side, ted olson, along with boyes.oth arguing prop 8 should be struck down just as another landmark ruling, loving versus virginia, which overturned a state ban on interracial marriage. 30 states have amendments banning marriage equality. what will those states be watching for in today's arguments? >> i think it's up to the supreme court justices. they'll decide whether everyone should be treateded equally under the law or not. i think that we've even seen, going back to public opinion, polling in states that have a ban on same-sex marriage, ohio 53%, a poll showed yesterday they favor reversing their ban on same-sex marriage. we'll have a clearer lay of the land at the epd of the summer after the ruling is clear, but beyond that, we'll just assess at that point. >> jimmy, today also marking the ten-year anniversary of the landmark case on gay rights, lawrence v. texas. justice kennedy writing the majority opinion. he also seems to be pivotal in this case. "the washington post" quoting kennedy saying in a recent interv

put into the constitution and ted olson said at the same time that the rights of people of different sexes or different races to marry got put into the constitution which was eight hundred sixty eight with the passage of the fourteenth amendment it wasn't fulfilled at that point in time but that's when i put the constitution where you think so we basically say that a behavior is the same as an innate caught in a something you're born with i guess according of the here's the bottom line tom if the people look at why don't the people of california just refocus on proposition eight if they if the tide is turning in the polls are all in their favor and those of us who oppose are all you know small minded and and in the minority why doesn't california just revote well that's it that's a good question the fact that we're wasting everybody's time let's just go back and do it in the final phrase in the arguments richard in the in the in the final closing argument before the court. mr charke cooper was neutral scooper charles who were you the guy who was arguing this he paraphrase jefferson a

you really ought to talk to ted olson about this. he said, are you kidding me? ted olson?tory short. >> the guy who delivered the supreme court case to george w. bush. >> exactly. long story short. they decide to hire ted olson and then ted olson says, you know who else should join me in this case? david boyes. take a listen to rob reiner here. >> then when he suggested that we get david boyes to be his cocounsel, i thought, wow. to get the two guys who opposed each other on bush v. gore to team up saying that this is a nonpartisan issue. >> so, gloria, this is an unlikely marriage in itself. what is the significance of a conservative and a liberal fighting this case together? >> i think what they feel is that it will represent kind of the nonpartisan change that you're seeing in this country right now about the question of same sex marriage. that if they could team up because they believe it's the constitutional issue, a violation of the equal protection clause, they believe that they can team up, then anybody should listen to their arguments. i think ted olson had a toug

>> ted olson's case. if you're making the case that this is a law that needs to be changed under the equal protection clause of the constitution, the other side will argue, wait a minute, these people have political power and they also are succeeding at the state level, and you see public opinion shifting in favor of same-sex marriage. so the argument on the other side is, let it proceed at the state level, now that they're starting to have success, and why have the supreme court intervene at this point when things seem to be moving along in the country? so it's sort of an ironic point there. >> counterintuitive. >> gloria's documentary airs later tonight. she gets exclusive access in the marriage warriors, showdown at the supreme court. it airs shortly after we're done in "the situation room." it's at 7:30 p.m. eastern, only here on cnn. >>> coming up, north korea puts its rockets of stand by and warns of attacks, we'll go to a south korean island why they're fearing the worst. >>> and what if your airfa

spouse also diane olson, who is the granddaughter of a former governor of california, governor olson. also i filed an amicus in brief inan amicus this case. >> please identify your cells. >> my name is charles cooper. i represent the petitioners in this case. the parties and their lawyers have litigated this case for almost four years. finally, at this point, the case, as you have seen, which presented to the court. the court asked some penetrating, majored questions of both sides, and now it is in the hands of the court. we're looking forward to a prompt response. a difficult,is is controversial issue. thank you. >> [indiscernible] to sum up myo way argument in a couple of sentences. believe proposition 8 is constitutional. we believe the place to make the decision is with the people, not with the courts. >> [indiscernible] thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the general counsel for that protect marriage coalition. today we feel we clearly presented the winning case for marriage. lead the council did an outstanding job delivering the arguments with great rate. we would like to thank o

olson. this case was properly -- is now properly before the court and was properly granted, even if, even if, your honor, one could defend the specific judgment below for the ninth circuit, a defense that i haven't heard offered to this court. judicial redefinition of marriage even in -- even if it can be limited to california, is well worthy of this court's attention, particularly, your honor, as it come from a single district court judge in a single jurisdiction. i would also like -- >> i think that begs your -- mr. olson doesn't really focus on this. f the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the nswer? >> because, your honor -- >> we let issues perk, and so we let racial segregation perk for 50 years from 1898 to 1954. >> your honor, it is hard to -- >> and now we are only talking about, at most, four years. >> it is hard to imagine a case that would be better, or more thoroughly, i should say,

i thought olson had a good answer.ded sexual orientation is a characteristics of individuals they cannot control. this is an evolutionary cycle. [ applause ] >> stephanie: future husband whatever. >> back hair was a turnoff. >> stephanie: could be hunted for his pelt. >> no, i was just going to say they use the kid argument a lot which i think is so fascinating. it is like why? there aren't enough studies to show what impact this has -- like that's the problem? same-sex couples adopting children in loving, caring homes? >> stephanie: ginsburg said that's not relevant. she said to scalia that's not relevant because same-sex couples can already in adopt. you're brinking up something -- it is like he probably goes to conservapedia all the time. there are studies we don't know yet what the effect -- what? >> i think that's -- >> it is a fallacy. >> that's not the problem. >> stephanie: what do you think, sweater vest? what do you think ward cleaver? >> june, i think you're a little hard on beaver last night. >> stephanie:

justice antonin scalia repeatedly asked ted olson, the lawyer arguing for the other side, to define how long ago gay marriage became a fundamental right. the question got raised in court today by justice anthony kennedy and they should have taken the case at all. so don't ask anybody to predict how this is going to turn out. >> i was to ask you how you thought it was going to turn out. what was it like outside, inside? what was the feel, the mood, if you will? >> reporter: it's interesting, different cases obviously have different textures. this started out at a bit of a party atmosphere because you could sense there are a lot of people who saw this as a day that was so long coming, a day they had wanted so much just for the court to hear them and hear their case. and why they thought they ought to have the right to be married. inside the courtroom, tense, yes, but also funny at times. there's always a lot of sort of tongue in cheek humor if you will. and that played well. the other thing i have to say is that it's very rushed. these are issues have been a long time brewing in states. j

and olson wasn't going to give him a day. olson was simply going to say what matters is that it's unconstitutional now. >> and i can tell you in his preparation olson knew that he was going to get this kind of question from scalia because it's no secret how scalia views the constitution. >> let's talk about one more sound bite and then your broader take on today. on the side arguing for proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, the issue of procreation and children really came up a lot. that surprised me. list listen here. this is justices questioning charles cooper, the attorney on the other side of the issue. listen. >> because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we're not going to give marriage licenses any more to any couple who are both people over the age of 55, would that be constitutional? >> no, your honor, it would not be. >> i suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get their marriage, are you fertile or are you not fertile? >> i can just

ted olson and david boies there with the four plaintiffs, this is their day.ike from jeff toobin and joe johns that the justices were all over the place. so we'll have to wrat and sewai and equal rights for gay enabled us list the partisan veil and shine the spotlight on the human faces. human faces of suffering. >> conversations at microphones continue i have to squeeze if a break. continuing to cover this live. if you want to listen to those at the podium outside the supreme court you can do so. when we come back a critical decision overseas for our own. amanda knox. is she not guilty and that's not subject to being tried again or might she once again have to go overseas and be tried for murder? okay. so i'm the bad guy for being clean. you said it. ladies, let's not fight dirty. cascade kitchen counselor. see, over time, finish gel can leave hard-water film on your dishes and dishwasher. new cascade platinum's triple-action formula not only cleans your dishes, it helps keep your dishwasher sparkling. so we're good? don't do that. okay. [ female announcer ]

there were four justices sympathetic to ted olson's argument. the four democratic appointees in different ways, justice ruth bader ginsburg, stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor and elena kagan seemed simple thre eed syntheti. the others seemed sympathetic to the anti-same-sex marriage force. clarence thomas said nothing. and anthony kennedy the swing vote so often seemed to be groping for some sort of resolution. he said, some things that were sympathetic to one side, some sympathetic to the other, but i wouldn't venture a guess on his vote at this point. >> real quick here, that's a good summary inside the courtroom. sounds like -- what is the mood outside the courtroom? is it festive? sounds like a party going on out there. >> it is pretty festive. it's overwhelmingly pro-same-sex marriage force but was a few opponents here. they've been here all day long. it's very good natured crowd. it's not threatening in any way. it's the first amendment to the united states constitution in action put to use by people expressing their views. >> lots of action

one of them is ted olson, former solicitor general republican fought against david boiz.same side with him, liberal democrat, they were opposed to each other in of course the famous case you know, suzanne, and i know, because we covered it, bush versus gore. and here they are finding themselves on the same side of the issue of same sex marriage. ted olson, icon of the conservative movement talking to him about this, you know, he's been ost ri sized by many on his side of the aisle and he says he's doing it because it's a matter of human dignity. and both men believe this is kind of the last civil rights fight of their generation. and so you're going to be seeing them together. ted olson will be the one arguing the case. he's argued 60 times, suzanne, before the court. he's won 44 of those times. so it will be interesting to watch. >> that is dpoing to be a fascinating case. gloria, tell us a little about you have a special coming up as well. >> we do. >> you've spent a lot of time with these guys. >> it's really a story of how this case all got started. you'll recall, suz

and then to the right of me i saw scott olson get hit. i didn't know who he was at this time.s just a stranger. and when i seen him get hit, i whistled at another guy, and we ran in and grabbed him by his backpack and tried to pull him out. >> scott olson is lying on the ground, bleeding from his head and mouth. >> and that's when that other percussion grenade or tear gas canister came in and blew up. and it blew up right next to his face. >> that was the moment when somebody yelled this guy is hurt and he needs to be carried. >> jesse, ernest, and a few others carry scott out of the street in search of medical help. >> medic! medic! >> what happened? what happened? >> he got hit. >> but he had blood coming out of his forehead and his eyes, his nose, his mouth. and i looked into his eyes, and i spoke to him, and i said, you know, you're going to be okay, we're going to get you to safety, what's your name? >> what's your name? what's your name? what's your name? >> what's your name? >> he didn't respond in any way. and at that point i realized his eyes are open but he's very no

olson. also i filed an amicus in this case in the perry case that was heard this morning on behalf of the women's equal rights and education fund. >> please identify yourselves and make sure you face that camera. >> my name is charles cooper. i represent the petitioners. the parties and their lawyers have litigated this case for almost four years. case,y to this point, the as you have seen, was presented to the court. the court asked some penetrating, measured questions of both sides. and now is in the hands of the court. we're looking forward to a prompt response. as i said, this is a difficult, controversial issue. thank you. >> [indiscernible] >> there is no way to sum up my argument in a couple of sentences. we believe proposition 8 his constitutional and the plays for the decision to be made regarding redefining marriage is with the people, not within the courts. >> what do you make of the questioning -- >> thank you very much. good afternoon. i am the general counsel for the perfect ma

longer be enforceable after this case. >> justice scalia asked the plaintiff's attorney, theodore olson, when it became unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage. >> you have been listening to justice antonin scalia questioning theater olson, he may remember was the solicitor general under george h.w. bush, lost his wife on the airplane that flew into washington, d.c. on september 11. john lewis, your response? >> justice scalia represents the minority view on the court. in fact, justice kennedy wrote the majority view, which is the law of the land with respect to this issue, and quite eloquently a conclusion of lawrence versus taxes, justice kennedy reticulated how the basic guarantees of freedom and equality contained in our constitution are stated as general propositions by the founders, by those who wrote the amendments to the bill of rights atause they recognize that -- as our nation evolves, later generations that come out of the 14th, and fifth amendment or drafted, the later generations will see the loss once thought necessary and appropriate only served to op

lynn olson chronicles those years in "those angry days."n roosevelt was signing a bill in the law that required men between 21 and 45 to sign up for the draft. charles lindbergh, the american hero who became the voice of isolationist america first people was fdr's most famous and prominent critic. libdberg in october 1 940. his plea here is for us to stay out of war. >> we must enter the wars of europe in order to defend america will be fatal to our nation if we follow it. when men are called upon to fight and die for their country, there must not be even the remotest question of foreign influence. >> what area is foreign influence. that's where he got in trouble, the only people -- it was the madison square garden, and he said that it was the british and jews. he made them sound like some forbes group and that was his crime -- certainly his political crime. >> that was his political downfall, that speech basically did him in in terms of the american people and how they viewed him. >> respectability. >> absolutely. >> and franklin roosevelt

>> well, we -- as you were -- aware and with the co counsel, ted olson, we put the full group of issues before the high court and while we fully support a broad 50 state ruling that subjects proposition 8 to scrutiny we made sure we provided them with another opposite. a california focused option. i -- they asked whichs about that and obviously whatever decision they make and how they fashion it, whether it's an eight state solution, as the solicitor general has talked about or a california focused decision or a broad ruling, the legal reasoning, lying beyond that, equal protection is fundamental to any of the remedies regardless of how broad they may fashion it. i'm not going to predict exactly how the court is going to come out but we think that the equal protection argument is strong and will have vitality not just in california but across the country. >> andy your final response. >> well, i think this has been a very long road and your program earlier detailed the many years and many twists and turns this case has taken and i think it'll be good for the initiative process and for th

olson. >> he will hear arguments this morning in case 12144, hollingsworth versus perry. >> until quite recently, it was an accepted truth for anyone who almost ever lived in any society in which marriage existed. >> we of the jurisdictional and merritt issue. maybe it would be best if you could begin with the standing issue. >> the official proponents of proposition 8, the initiative, have the standing to defend that measure before this court as representatives of the people and the state of california, to defend the validity of the measure that they brought forward. >> have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives? >> no, your honor. the court has not done that. but the court has never had before it a clear expression from unanimous state's high court. >> the concern is, certainly, the proponents are interested in getting it on the ballot and miggy sure that all proper procedures are followed, but -- making sure that all proper procedures are followed, but once it is ba

on your issue. >> reporter: that's the ted olson, the conservative legal icon.han stunned me. it stunned me, but i said, if this is true, this is the home run of all times. i mean, the idea that ted olson, this arch conservative, the solicitor general for george bush, who had argued bush v. gore and basically put me in bed for a couple of days, i was so depressed after bush v. gore, was interested in gay rights. i said, let's check it out. >> reporter: didn't you have any doubts about ted olson? >> you know, they say that politics makes strange bedfellows. well, you don't have a stranger bedfellow than me and ted olson. >> gloria borger, great interview, from washington. our chief political analyst, the snippet we saw part of this fascinating program we will be debuting this saturday night, the marriage warriors, and gloria, speaking of strange bedfellow, there was another strange bedfellow here. tell me about that. >> so this takes another twist. so rob reiner eventually gets in touch with ted olson, and they hire him because he is, in fact, against proposition

what ted olson did was explain how these plaintiffs and the thousands of gay and lesbian couples are harmed in the state of california by proposition 8. he did that with the plaintiffs seeking in the court room. -- seated in the courtroom. sat in the court room. ted olson described that marriage is a fundamental right. >> you have been an attorney for many years. have you ever seen in issue in which public opinion has shifted so much and so fast? over the last decade, there has been a 16. shift. >> have you seen this before? >> we have never seen anything like it. we have been physically the bonking the arguments that have been made. once we have a trial, cross- examining. they came over to our site and agreed with us that marriage equality would be better for america. today, they mentioned a health care decisions. there was more outcry about health care. there was concern in the public. here, we have public opinion supporting marriage equality. >> in a sense, isn't that relevant? this is not about public opinion. should the supreme court making their judgments based on what opinion

. >> there were much more spirited exchanges between the justices and attorney ted olson who spoke on behalf of those who support same sex marriage. olson cited other supreme court decisions that affected marriages. >> you suggested that this is uncharted waters. it was uncharted waters when this court in 1967 in the loving decision said that inter- - prohibitions on interracial marriages which still existed in 16 states were unconstitutional. >> it was hundreds of years old and the common law countries. this was new to the united states. >> and what we have here is -- >> that's not accurate. >> i -- yeah i respectfully submit that we've -- we've learned to understand more about sexual orientation and what it means to individuals. i guess the lang wan that justice ginsberg used at the closing of the vmi case is a an important thing. a prime part of the history of our constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights to people once ignored or excluded. >> several justices raised doubts. the case should even be before them and justice anthony kennedy suggested the cour

. >> there were much more spirited exchanges between the justices and attorney ted olson who spoke on behalf of those who support same sex marriage. olson cited other supreme court decisions that affected marriages. >> you suggested that this is uncharted waters. it was uncharted waters when this court in 1967 in the loving decision said that inter- - prohibitions on interracial marriages which still existed in 16 states were unconstitutional. >> it was hundreds of years old and the common law countries. this was new to the united states. >> and what we have here is -- >> that's not accurate. >> i -- yeah i respectfully submit that we've -- we've learned to understand more about sexual orientation and what it means to individuals. i guess the lang wan that justice ginsberg used at the closing of the vmi case is a an important thing. a prime part of the history of our constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights to people once ignored or excluded. >> several justices raised doubts. the case should even be before them and justice anthony kennedy suggested the cour

i think ted olson is much more adroit to make the argument about the institution of marriage as something justice kagan asked at one point what is the harm if this goes through? we have the effect of same-sex marriage. eventually the court has to decide. even if they don't decide this time they have to make the decision. i have the feeling, i may be wrong about this, but i keep thinking in a sneaky way justice roberts will try to figure out a way to rule on this so he is able to be a part of a court that moves forward on something he has to face if not now, five years from now, ten years from now. >> john: what about the idea brought up at the court that we are too early in to this to be able to make any learned decision at the court level? >> alito talked about this issue newer than the internet, newer than cell phones. it's something that really, should they be taking this on or let it sort of -- i think justice kagan said perk at the state level for a while before they decide whether or not to weigh in. don't forget if you look at poll numbers, more and more people support gay marriage

olson lee from the director of the mayor's office of housing. the money is going into our low mod fund -- >> can we please turn that phone off? thank you. >> into the low mod housing fund. and clearly all the existing affordable housing in the surrounding area are eligible for access to that affordable housing fund. the workers in not only cpmc, but all employers in san francisco are eligible to participate in our down payment assistance loan program. and through the voters and through the housing trust fund, we've been able to put basically refund the housing trust fund. you'll see that in the mayor's office budget as we come forward with our next fiscal year budget. but those employees will have access to those funds. and as we use those funds, we can make decisions in the future for -- to replenish that down payment assistance fund should the need be there. but we will be creating affordable housing in the general area. we still have some octavia parcels to develop. and, again, we will be utilizing the funds from this low mod fund as well as

i think ted olson did not answer it very well. he talked about, it was when we began to accept gays into our culture, new understandings of equality. i do not think that is right. that sort of plays into the opposite trap that scalia was laying. i think the answer is, 1868, when the 14th amendment was ratified. not because i have proof or think that the ratifiers of that amendment had in mind gay marriage or any aspect of gay rights, but you look at if you are an originalist, we are arguing the right to equality under the law protected by the 14th amendment. what is the meaning of equal protection under the law? look at that, and either there is a right to gay marriage once the government gets in with the 14th amendment, or there is still not that right. those are the only two possible answers. i link to other possible discussions of this. josh blackman has a blog about this. my cocounsel on our brief also. >> you make an interesting point. here is what matters. whether it happened in 1868 or happened when we came to understand th

. >>> two of the nation's most prominent attorneys, ted olson and david boies, argued different sidespreme court case that decided the 2000 election. but on the issues of same-sex marriage, they are of the same mind. they joined forces back in 2010 to fight prop 8, the california law banning same-sex marriage. cnn's gloria borger sat down with them for their only joint interview before olson argued against the case for the supreme court. >> this is a conservative court. i don't have to tell either of you that. so that what makes you believe that this court is going to rule in your favor? lots of people would say, the odds are against you. >> i think these are conservative values, as much as they are liberal values. the belief in the constitution, the belief in an independent judiciary. the recognition of equality. the desire to prevent the government from regulating people's most intimate relationships, i think as much a conservative value as it is a liberal value. >> when you first started this case, public opinion had shifted dramatically over the last four years. >> i don't know, i

that sotomayor brought that up. >> and the government-- the easy answer to the first one, and ted olson is a great lawyer and lawyers on both sides are great lawyers. and there's an interest not to allow polygamy and could answer either side of the debate you're on. when you heard from justice kennedy may well be the opinion in this case, they limit this to california and let the other states deal with it because justice kennedy seemed reluctant at least from the oral arguments to penalize, in a sense, those 40,000 kids that parents are same-sex marriage. >> sean: juan, would you be happy with that-- >> very cautious here, i suspect. >> sean: juan, by the way i can't bring up obama's flip and flopping, and flipping and flopping on the issue because we don't have time. would that be acceptable as you somebody on the left? >> i think they've got to evolve. it's not acceptable in terms it of rights. gay people have rights and they should be protected. >> sean: and you want the definition of marriage changed forever? changed for that would change the entire definition of marriage in the cou