>> why isn't that true of romer? the people of colorado decided that they wanted to do this and that's what they wanted -- just the way the people of california did, but that there is a limit on that and it doesn't have to be in the federal constitution except that there has to be a rational basis for it and it can't be related to bias. >> yes, your honor, that is true and so if proposition 8 was coming to you without there having been this previous period in which california had approved of same-sex marriage, it would come to you in the same constitutional profile that it comes to you now. i guess our point is, it isn't changed because there has been this previous period where the california supreme court has interpreted the california constitution to invalidate traditional marriage. interestings an question, i think, in this case. would it really be the same if it stayed -- did not go as far as california had gone. would they be required to go that far? or, is it different when you're taking something away? you can

i would recall, justice kennedy, the point made in romer, that under a rational basis of review, the provision will be sustained even if it operates to the disadvantage of a group, if it is -- if it otherwise advances rationally a legitimate state interest. >> mr. cooper, we will afford you more time. you shouldn't worry about losing your rebuttal time, but please continue on. >> oh -- >> as long as you are on that, then i would like to ask you this -- assume you could distinguish california, suppose we accept your argument or accept justice scalia's version of your argument and that distinguishes california. now, let's look at california. what precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? i mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children. to take a state that does allow adoption and say -- there, what is the justification for saying no gay marriage? said,nly not the one you is it? >> you're -- >> am i not cle

i would recall, justice kennedy, the point made in romer, that under a rational basis of review, the provision will be sustained even if it operates to the disadvantage of a group, if it is -- if it otherwise advances rationally a legitimate state interest. >> mr. cooper, we will afford you more time. you shouldn't worry about losing your rebuttal time, but please continue on. >> oh -- >> as long as you are on that, then i would like to ask you this -- assume you could distinguish california, suppose we accept your argument or accept justice scalia's version of your argument and that distinguishes california. now, let's look at california. what precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? i mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children. to take a state that does allow adoption and say -- there, what is the justification for saying no gay marriage? certainly not the one you said, is it? >> you're -- >> am i

case, this court's decision on the romer case, that it could be decided on the narrower issue, but it certainly was an appropriate case to grant. and those issues that i've been describing are certainly fundamental to the case. and i don't want to abuse the court's indulgence, that what i -- you suggested that this is uncharted waters. it was uncharted waters when this court, in 1967, in the loving decision said that interracial -- prohibitions on interracial marriages, which still existed in 16 states, were unconstitutional. >> it was hundreds of years old in the common law countries. this was new to the united states. >> and what we have here -- >> so -- so that's not accurate. >> i respectfully submit that we've under -- we've learned to understand more about sexual orientation and what it means to individuals. guess the language that justice ginsburg used at the closing of the vmi case is an important thing, it resonates with me, "a prime part of the history of our constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights to people once ignored or excluded." >> thank you

the question of that issue is very similar to the issue that romer in the colorado decision that justiceated and wrote the majority opinion. back to your previous question, what am i looking to? justice kennedy in his questioning and whether or not the arguments and i imagine the making will very in line with the romer decision and whether or not kennedy's questioning suggests the per suasive nature of those arguments. >> when you were mayor of san francisco, many people believe you started all of this. by marrying people. could you have ever imagined in 2004 that we would be here today? >> not a chance. i would love to say that i did. i thought in my lifetime maybe. but the progress, we've seen the courage of people in elected office. it's alwaysese when are you out of office, but i subscribe, richard, to your point of view, i can't criticize anyone, particularly senator portman, who stands up and does the right thing, regardless of how they got to that decision. it's courageous, nonetheless. it's interesting to see everyone jump over, trying to get ahead of the decision as it relates t

i would recall, justice kennedy, the point made in romer, that under a rational basis of review, the provision will be sustained even if it operates to the disadvantage of a group, if it is -- if it otherwise advances rationally a legitimate state interest. >> mr. cooper, we will afford you more time. you shouldn't worry about losing your rebuttal time, but please continue on. >> oh -- >> as long as you are on that, then i would like to ask you this: assume you could distinguish california, suppose we accept your argument or accept justice scalia's version of your argument and that distinguishes california. now, let's look at california. what precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? i mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children. to take a state that does allow adoption and say -- there, what is the justification for saying no gay marriage? certainly not the one you said, is it? >> you're -- >> am i no

romer was amendment two from colorado, which was enacted by popular vote in enacting this vast ban on any gay people in the state of colorado. whether it is a tier of scrutiny kamal orrick you say fourth you call it a tier of scrutiny or whatever you say, the rational basis supplies, but differently in different circumstances for you have different concerns about what is going on, that is what the supreme court has done, like it or not. >> i will give you a chance to respond, and then we will take a short opportunity for the audience to ask questions, and recognizing that we will get to the other questions in just a minute. >> i would like to say very briefly that i think paul's discussion illustrates the and coherence of -- the incoherent of the court's approach to of the- incoherence court's approach to these things, the lack of intellectual integrity in their approach to these reviews. it is why we ought to expect the court to exercise judicial restraint and return to a genuine rational basis review. >> it is difficult to have a debate about something if we will not start with the

case, this court's decision on the romer case, that it could be decided on the narrower issue, but it certainly was an appropriate case to grant. and those issues that i've been describing are certainly fundamental to the case. and i don't want to abuse the court's indulgence, that what i -- you suggested that this is uncharted waters. it was uncharted waters when this court, in 1967, in the loving decision said that interracial -- prohibitions on interracial marriages, which still existed in 16 states, were unconstitutional. oldt was hundreds of years in the common law countries. this was new to the united states. >> and what we have here -- >> so -- so that's not accurate. >> i respectfully submit that we've under -- we've learned to understand more about sexual orientation and what it means to individuals. guess the language that justice ginsburg used at the closing of the vmi case is an important thing, it resonates with me, "a prime part of the history of our constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights to people once ignored or excluded." >> thank you, cou

they were protesting the death of march row romer wrote who was shot and killed by police back in septembere city's police chief defends the shooting. >> he was on probation for carrying a concealed, loaded, stolen firearm. mr. romero chose to get out of the car and confront our officers with a replica handgun. he was in possession of drugs. >> the city council members left the room during that protest and the police removed the protestors out of city hall. >>> family members and friends mourning the death of a vallejo man stabbed to death yesterday afternoon. last night candles were it will on eldorado street. that is where christopher armstrong was attacked by a man. described as a homeless man. armstrong was an avid baseball player, professional cook, and community college student who will be missed. >> everybody loved him. everybody. >> just a free spirited, funny, he was the person i would go to to talk to. >> police arrested a suspect a couple blocks from that crime scene. identified as 36-year-old james alexander. armstrong's friends say alexander arrived at his home to do work but t

we'll talk to buddy romer next. [ coughs ] [ angry gibberish ] [ justin ] mulligan sir. mulligan.mulligan. i took something for my sinuses, but i still have this cough. [ male announcer ] truth is, a lot of sinus products don't treat cough. they don't? [ male announcer ] nope, but alka seltzer plus severe sinus does it treats your worst sinus symptoms, plus that annoying cough. [ angry gibberish ] [ fake coughs ] sorry that was my fault sir. [ male announcer ] alka seltzer plus severe sinus. [ breathes deeply ] ♪ oh, what a relief it is! [ male announcer ] try alka seltzer plus severe sinus day and night for complete relief from your worst sinus symptoms. [ barking ] ♪ come on, boy! [ barks ] ♪ oh, heavenly day here we go. ♪ cha-cha-cha ♪ don't you know that i love ya ♪ ♪ cha-cha-cha-cha-cha ♪ always thinking of ya ♪ all around the world ♪ everybody singin' along ♪ singin' along ♪ fly me to the moon ♪ let me play among the stars ♪ let me see what spring -- ♪ [ birds chirping ] [ male announcer ] with the best lineup of vehicles ever, introducing the new chevrolet. ♪ oh, heavenly d

justice kennedy who had previously adjudicated in a 6-3 decision writing that majority opinion in the romer versus colorado. >> 40,000 children of same-sex couples in your state. >> it was finally bringing the human element in this case. we can talk in academic terms. we can talk in legalese. talking about human beings here. to justice kennedy's credit, that was the first time we connected it to what rob and others just mentioned. this is about human dignity, self-worth. this is about human rights, civil rights. to bring the children back in is a good reminder at what's at stake here. it's not just a legal breathe. this is about people. this is the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, mothers and their sons and daughters. >> you've said it. you say it on that promo. i see it all the time on msnbc. the beautiful thing about this country, any time we talk about expanding rights and giving people rights, we do the right thing. >> eventually. >> eventually we do the right thing. because the founders of this country had an idea which is that we should all be considered equal under the law. >> it's

and paul romer, the director of nyu sterns organization project. friend mitchell moss, professor at wagner school of public service. many of you know in the audience how much i love cities and how much i love thinking about the future of cities. but we want to talk about this idea of a new institute with donald marron. so why did you do this and why did you put it at nyu? >> two words-- john sexton. ( laughter ) >> rose: the president of nyu. >> the president of nyu. he invited me on the board and we have had many lunches over the last five years figuring out what i would do. and at one lunch about a year and a half ago he said i have this idea. the world needs a school, an institute that studies cities from all aspects. nyu has many of the piece but i want to start that kind of an institute and i would like you to be heavily involved in it. i thought about it and thought i owe a lot to cities. i grew up in the city. the opportunities i had came from there and i thought this is a very good thing. what really made for me is i'm an entrepreneur. i'm

he did not talk about marriage in that case, but he did write lawrence and he did write romer. my guess is he will strike down roma and prop 8. the proof is in the pudding. it's there. let's be clear. what edith wanted was equal treatment not special treatment. gay marriage isn't a special right, it's 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 s

i would recall, justice kennedy, the point made in romer, that under a rational basis of review, the provision will be sustained even if it operates to the disadvantage of a group, if it is -- if it otherwise advances rationally a legitimate state interest. >> mr. cooper, we will afford you more time. you shouldn't worry about losing your rebuttal time, but please continue on. >> oh -- >> as long as you are on that, then i would like to ask you this -- assume you could distinguish california, suppose we accept your argument or accept justice scalia's version of your argument and that distinguishes california. now, let's look at california. what precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? i mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children. to take a state that does allow adoption and say -- there, what is the justification for saying no gay marriage? certainly not the one you said, is it? >> you're -- >> am i

texas, which said that states could no longer ban consensual sodomy among consenting adults and the romero. so he is certainly the most likely of the five republicans on the court to join the four democrats, at least on the defense of marriage act case, if not also on the proposition 8 case. there are two same-sex marriage cases to be argued next week. >> so, jimmy, if things don't go your way, if the justices like, you know, i'll just shorthand it, rule against same-sex marriage, rule out its constitutionality, what will you do? >> well, this issue is being talked about in every state. and the tenth amendment leaves marriage and family law to the states. and i think that there will be a state-by-state recognition that gay people should have the opportunity and the ability to get married and that will take just a longer conversation that we're having as a nation. and that's what we'll do. we'll continue to take it state by state and show that marriage a good for everybody, including gay people. >> and last question for you, jeffrey. many people have said the same-sex marriage issue was th

christine romer, who served president obama as his top advisor on economic matters, has estimated that the difference in 1% and 2% growth is a million jobs. so what do you have there? you have more than 2 million jobs less being created in 2011 than were projected by the experts that we rely on in 2009. and look at this, it's even worse in 2012. they projected growth in 2012 to be 4.4%. back in 2010, just two years in advance, and it came in at 2.2%. and these 1.8%, 2.2% growths are really not growth. that is not a job-creating factor. you need to have more growth than that to create real job and hiring and wage improvements and -- and raises. so i just would say to you, what is causing that? what is causing that? professors rogue heart and reinhart did the fabulous book, "this time it's different." they did an empirical actual study of the economies over 200 years of nations that ran up too much debt. and they studied what happened. and the ones that are debt crises. and what did they conclude? not based on theory, not some idea or formula reached in academic situation, but what actua

the third time, they asked again in the wake of romer, and they got the same answer -- it's constitutional. now the solicitor general wants to say -- well, it was want of careful reflection? well, where do we get careful reflection in our system? generally, careful reflection comes in the democratic process. the democratic process requires people to persuade people. the reason there has been a sea change is a combination of political power, as defined by this court's cases as getting the attention of lawmakers -- certainly they have that. but it's also persuasion. that's what the democratic process requires. you have to persuade somebody you're right. you don't label them a bigot. you don't label them as motivated by animus. you persuade them you are right. that's going on across the country. colorado, the state that brought you amendment 2, has just recognized civil unions. maine, that was pointed to in the record in this case as being evidence of the persistence of discrimination because they voted down a statewide referendum, the next election cycle it came out the other way. and the fe

the third time, they asked again in the wake of romer, and they got the same answer: it's constitutional now the solicitor general wants to say: well, it was want of careful reflection? well, where do we get careful reflection in our system? generally, careful reflection comes in the democratic process. the democratic process requires people to persuade people. the reason there has been a sea change is a combination of political power, as defined by this court's cases as getting the attention of lawmakers; certainly they have that. but it's also persuasion. that's what the democratic process requires. you have to persuade somebody you're right. you don't label them a bigot. you don't label them as motivated by animus. you persuade them you are right. that's going on across the country. colorado, the state that brought you amendment 2, has just recognized civil unions. maine, that was pointed to in the record in this case as being evidence of the persistence of discrimination because they voted down a statewide referendum, the next election cycle it came out the other way. and the federal

the third time, they asked again in the wake of romer, and they got the same answer: it's constitutional. now the solicitor general wants to say: well, it was want of careful reflection? well, where do we get careful reflection in our system? generally, careful reflection comes in the democratic process. the democratic process requires people to persuade people. the reason there has been a sea change is a combination of political power, as defined by this court's cases as getting the attention of lawmakers; certainly they have that. but it's also persuasion. that's what the democratic process requires. you have to persuade somebody you're right. you don't label them a bigot. you don't label them as motivated by animus. you persuade them you are right. that's going on across the country. colorado, the state that brought you amendment 2, has just recognized civil unions. maine, that was pointed to in the record in this case as being evidence of the persistence of discrimination because they voted down a statewide referendum, the next election cycle it came out the other way. and the federa

the third time they asked again in the wake of romer and they got the same answer: it's constitutional. >>gretchen: grilling on this question and the constitutionality of california's gay marriage ban isn't expected until late june. >>> out of nowhere an eight-year-old california girl hit with an arrow. she was playing on the u.c.-berkeley campus where her school was on a science trip when it happened. medics rushed her to the hospital where doctors surgically removed the arrow. police said she was a trooper and the whole time, and she is going to be okay. they are still trying to figure out where the arrow came from. are you kidding me? you're on a field trip and you get as a call your kid was hit with an arrow and nobody knows where it came from. >>brian: they said they took it out but it's in -- >>steve: they had to keep it in there until they got -- >>brian: they seem so happy. the cop was there and she seems happy. >>steve: i'm sure she was in shock. we told you exactly half of the so-called gang of eight on immigration reform went to the u.s.-mexico border in arizona and john mcc

we've had these two major gay rights cases of the court has decided, the two major ones in 1996 the romer case and in 2003 the lawrence case and he was e theth thea author of both of those opinions and you can draw a straight line between those two points and thank you so much for your insight. we'll be seeing and hearing a lot of you. >> let's get to the other story. the deadline to stop $85 billion worth of automatic budget cuts has come and it's gone. washington has more on its to-do list, though. the president says, quote, we can't keep lurching from one manufactured crisis to another, but now he has to get a budget passed and there's also a debt ceiling fight that could be looming. here's what he had to say about the latesto in d.c. >> we will get through this. this is not going to be an apocalypse as some people have said. it's just dumb, and it's going to hurt. it's going to hurt individual people and it will hurt the economy overall. >> but are dumb politics actually working out for some folks? >> joining me now from washington, ed o'keefe "washington post" manyou raju. >> there a

romer was amendment two from colorado, which was enacted by popular vote in enacting this vast ban ony people in the state of colorado. whether it is a tier of scrutiny kamal orrick you say that rational basis supplies, but differently in different circumstances for you have different concerns about what is going on, that is what the supreme court has done, like it or not. >> i will give you a chance to respond, and then we will take a short opportunity for the audience to ask questions, and recognizing that we will get to the other questions in just a minute. >> i would like to say very briefly that i think paul's discussion illustrates the and coherence of -- the incoherent of the court's approach to these things, the lack of intellectual integrity in their approach to these reviews. it is why we ought to expect the court to exercise judicial restraint and return to a genuine rational basis review. >> it is difficult to have a debate about something if we will not start with the proposition of all of the existing supreme court case law working with these. not like the passage i cite