in roemer but the court is looking at was what does the target to? in other words how are you differentiating between his classes of individuals and are you differentiating to treat them unequal he? if that is the situation that is the very rare type of law and you can talk about semantics but there is no question looking at the text of the other marriage discrimination laws this is the only thing those laws did was target same-sex couples and made them unequal. none of those laws establish the right to marry, gave benefits or gave incentives. their only purpose and effect was to exclude same-sex olds from marriage or marriage racket yeshion. speedway couldn't be viewed as saying the only purpose and effect was to validate what has been an historical practice for eons? why could we say that's all they're doing? we want to be clear this practice is the one that utah supports, period. >> because your honor when you have at least three statutes and the constitutional amendment that is directed in excluding only one class of individuals from marriage is

>> ambassador roemer probably is the west source as to -- the best source as to how many were made. >> mr. chairman be, we take great pride in working with congress and the white house on precisely the answer to your question. i believe about 41 recommendations were made by the 9/11 commission, about 39 of those recommendations were enacted into law. as john adams said, it's not just acting on legislation, it's executing and implementing them once they're passed. so there have been varying degrees of success on the implementation and execution both by congress and by the agencies. of course, mr. chairman, i'd be remiss if i didn't bring it up in my old body of congress one of the remaining recommendations has to do with congress. it was the reorganization of the jurisdiction for homeland security which is varied and spread out to about 100 different committees and subcommittees, and we recommend that be their rowed. -- narrowed. that still has not been acted on, and we hope at some point that can be. >> okay. bruce, you may want to add from your standpoint of studying these things for

dignity as justice kennedy has said three times now in lawrence versus texas case involving conduct and roemer involving colorado legislation that took away the protection of laws that were preventing discrimination and in the windsor winter case from last june with respect to individuals under respect of the defense of marriage act. you are taking away the persons decency, their dignity and calling them different. those all relate to those fundamental rights of due process of laws and access to equal rights, access to the fundamental rights in this country. that's the gist of our constitutional argument and we think it is very simple and we think that it's an enormously significant that since the decision of the united states supreme court last june, federal judges that have dealt with this issue in texas, in oklahoma, in colorado, the district court in virginia and ohio and i think michigan and maybe another state or two that i'm leaving out. every single one of those federal judges have recognized the rights of these constitutional rights of our gay and lesbian citizens with respect to the

presidential nomination out of bed ok the one issue that we care most about both buddy roemer and myself is campaign finance reform we got to get money out of politics otherwise we're screwed we are in fact on a national level already lost our democracy the supreme court is screwing you're absolutely right that's why we're both buddy and i want a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics so i don't care about the rest of his opinions he does care about the rest some have been used but on that one most important issue we agree a lot that's how we met we met backstage at a campaign finance about it and i said oh yeah we've got companies doing grade that are going to raise money and said you guys you know i got a private equity fund i said oh really there were a lot of strain of a conversation and that's how it happened but how about what happens in reverse now you've got michael bloomberg is putting up fifteen million dollars against the n.r.a. that should please you mez money so i think that doesn't please no n.r.a. is abhorrent and i love michael bloomberg scam pain in that r