. >> ted olson, his adversary in bush v. gore, with a shared personal belief in the cause they were fighting for here, and, of course, their very formidable team when they're together rather than opposite each other. i have a question might ask to pete and tom there. if couples now sue who got married in massachusetts or iowa or someplace that recognizes it, their marriage is now recognized, will be recognized federally. if those -- if those couples move to someplace like alabama or utah where their marriage is not recognized and they sue for rights in the new state that they are in, is there anything in today's rulings that gives us a sense of what the precedent might be or how difficult that lawsuit might be for those couples to win to try to turn over even the state's that don't currently recognize those rights? >> it's my great privilege to be here this morning with the plaintiff's legal team and founding board members of the american foundation for equal rights. speaking first will be david boyes. >> this is a great day

finally, ted olson, what does this mean in terms of the bigger picture? when will people start getting married, gay people in california, do you think in terms of a time scale, and, you know, given what happened today with doma, the hash reality remains that although they can get married in california, the same gay couple who are now entitled to the benefits that have been brought in by this decision, if they go to a state later through work, whatever that doesn't recognize that, they are back where they started. where do you see america given the way and the speed this is moving, is actually moving to what california has in totality? >> i don't know that because it was very difficult to hear your full question, you can hear the enthusiasm here that tends to drowned out part of what you're saying. in terms of talking about a timetable, we don't know exactly when that will occur for legal procedures take awhile before the decision becomes final and it becomes effective in california. we're studying all that. we'll do -- we'll deal with that the same way we

but david boies and ted olson, the superlawyers who had brought this case to the supreme court, thoughthat perhaps they could win this nationwide right to same sex marriage in the supreme court said we're not going there. and frankly said not for a while. gwen: let's talk about the broader impact of this. we have a map up here. let's look at all the states where same sex marriage is equal. mid atlantic, d.c., delaware, maryland, all of new england, connecticut, rhode island, massachusetts, maine, new hampshire, vermont. and i wonder, amy, if you look at these whether this means there is a groundswell that's building in all of these states already? >> i don't know that you're going to see a groundswell. it seems pretty clear when you look at where it's legal and where it's not, it divides also pretty well -- how people voted in the presidential election, red or blues. gwen: and whether it was on a ballot initiative -- >> or whether by the legislative. >> or by a court decision. >> or by a court decision. in iowa's case. and we still see while the trend is heading toward acceptance of gay

the overwhelm thing i regret today is my friend and colleague ted olson can't be here. he has been a leader in this battle for the last four years. he is unfortunately today in another court, in another part of the country arguing another case. but his spirit is here and he will be with me tonight and we will celebrate because this is a victory not just for us, not just for the plaintiffs, not even just for the people who have worked for this so many decades, but for all americans. thank you. [applause] >> we'll now have comments from chris perry and sandy, plaintiffs in the case. foroday is a great day american children and families, sandy and i want to say how happy we are not only to be able to return to california and finally get married, but to be able to say to the children in california no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, no matter what family you are in, you are equal, you are as good as your friends' parents and as your friends. we believe from the very beginning that the importance of this case was to send a message to the children of thi

he is extremely proud of that proud that ted olson took his case. proud he sat in the supreme court and heard that. >> host: thank you for joining us. the book is the price of justice. a great reed. >> guest: thank you. >> we asked, what are you reading this summer? here's what some of you had to say. >> we want to know what you're reading. post a message on our facebook wall, tweet us or send us an e-mail. ... is part of book tv college series. >> the bankers knew quote this is a new book by stanford professor anat admati. what's wrong with banking and what to do about it is the subtitle. professor what is the cartoon on the front of the book? >> it shows a few naked bankers just wearing ties and this mother and child kind of staring at them and it represents some of the content of the but

he's proud that ted olson took his case. he's proud that he sat in the courtroom with the supreme court that day and heard that. >> host: laurence leamer, thank you so much for joining us. the book is "the price of justice," a great read. >> guest: thank you. >> that was "afterwords," booktv's signature program in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policymakers, legislators and others familiar with their material. after words airs at 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on sunday and 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch "after words" online. go to booktv.org and click on "after words" in the booktv series and topics list on the upper right side of the page. >> are you interested in being a part of booktv's online book club? our selection this month is sheryl sandberg's book, "lean in: women, work and the will to lead." in "lean in," ms. sandberg discusses why it's still difficult for women to achieve leadership roles in the united states. she also talks about her own career cho

and i think there's actually some other ones, too. >> i wonder -- we talk about ted olson's role in thispresident, and now with david boies advocating for gay marriage. ted ol soolson, what has this de to him in republican world? >> it would easy to say he's been cast out of the conservative movement but that's not the case. there's a serious debate going on within the conservative movement and republican party, what is the future on this issue if you're a republican or if you're a conservative? and i think ted olson has done a good job of encouraging conservatives to reconsider their position. i think the way you presented this today has been smart. these are totally separate issues, prop 8 and doma. there may be more support for same-sex issues than doma but still state rights concern on prop 8 type issues versus there are more openness to be -- to getting rid of a federal definition of marriage. >> the interesting thing on the prop 8 decision is that many of those options would lead to an outcome where it changes things for people who are seeking same-sex marriages in the state of cal

it is something all americans, conservatives and liberals alike, ought to support. >> in fact, ted olsonny of your colleagues, republicans, prominent leaders like marco rubio and chris christie, in new jersey, speaking out strongly against the supreme court's decision. what do you say to them and their criticism in the face of this? >> i would like them to watch the people in san francisco and other parts of california and other parts of the united states celebrating these decisions in the supreme court, because its he's all about love and warmth and being together with the person that you love. tears of joy streaming down people's faces. all over. we came to california after the decisions yesterday, and participated in a rally in west hollywo hollywood, and to look out at all of the people, so happy, that their relationship could be put on an equal footing with other people, other citizens of the united states. i don't think that you can look into the eyes of those people and not feel the gratitude that they feel for their country, for the supreme court and for those decisions that reco

>> guest: the best they could get, the highest is ted olson, the leading conservative appellate lawyer, and he has a lot of big corporate clients, and you think it's not an issue, at that point, you think this is the guy, they whatted him and took a long time for he agreed to do it. >> host: anything pivotal? what helped him make up the mind? >> guest: there's more and more pub publicity, and it was helpful when an abc producer went down to the headquarters, and blankenship with the camera, and blankenship came out and pushed him and knocked him against the car, and all this is tapedded. >> host: he was man handled by blankenship. >> guest: so all the publicity. >> host: in saying that, i recall that, you know, olson was intrigued by the case, but felt like he didn't have enough scope that that needed to have national ramifications, and i guess the publicity helped too. >> guest: he thought there was national ramifications and thought sooner or later the court would have to deal with the issue, but the court -- i mean, they are sitting there, choosing the cases that they think are appr

people who did it at a time when it was not as easy as it was for ted olson and myself to go into court. the only thing i regret today is that my friend and colleague, ted, can't be here. he has been a leader in this battle for the last four years. he is unfortunately, today, in another court, in another part of the country, arguing another case. but his spirit is here, and he will be with me tonight, and we will celebrate, because this is a victory not just for us, not just for the plaintiffs, not even just for the people who have worked for this so many decades, but for all americans. thank you. >> we now have comments from kris perry and sandy sier, plaintiffs in the case. >> today is a great day for american children and families. sandy and i want to say how happy we are, not only to be able to return to california and finally get married, but to be able to say to the children in california, no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, no matter what family you're in, you are equal, you are as good as your friends' parents, and as your friends. we believe from the very

we saw ted olson and david boies, the challengers to the laws went to the court to seek a redefinitiontionwide of what marriage is and they did not achieve that. so, what this means is that americans' voices are more important than ever and we should continue to stand up for marriage as the union of one man and one woman in the interest of children and we should stand up for americans' freedom to make marriage policy democratically. this shouldn't be something that the court decide. >> i agree it's still controversial, but what i had thought would not be controversy is the defense against marriage act. here's an act that we passed in the late '90s in congress which i would think libertarians -- >> you said defense against, you know, you said the name of the bill is defense of. >> you caught yourself. hat. we passed this, and -- in the late '90s, overwhelmingly, by the way. democrats and republicans. >> president clinton signed it. >> but if you sake away the gay overlay of this bill, you would have thought that conservatives, small government federalists and libertarians would have bee

the overwhelm thing i regret today is my friend and colleague ted olson can't be here. he has been a leader in this battle for the last four years. he is unfortunately today in another court, in another part of the country arguing another case. but his spirit is here and he will be with me tonight and we will celebrate because this is a victory not just for us, not just for the plaintiffs, not even just for the people who have worked for this so many decades, but for all americans. thank you. >> we'll now have comments from chris perry and sandy, plaintiffs in the case. >> today is a great day for american children and families, sandy and i want to say how happy we are not only to be able to return to california and finally get married, but to be able to say to the children in california no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, no matter what family you are in, you are equal, you are as good as your friends' parents and as your friends. we believe from the very beginning that the importance of this case was to send a message to the children of this coun

who is the main lawyer for vice president gore and his challenge obviously for the presidency, and ted olsonespected both of them and this is a big win for them in the big picture. whether -- as the judge said it doesn't deal with the merits of the case, but the jurisdiction. in essence it comes to the same conclusion, that california in just a few weeks will likely resume gay marriages in a state that that has been a major controversial issue. and the administration, president obama, weighing in on this as well and we expect to hear from the administration a at some point today. bill: in that state, governor brown and gavin newsom who started the wave and the tendency in california to go towards gay marriages there, you mentioned the legal partners, it's very intriguing. we may see them in a matter of moments. they are expected to talk at the bank of microphones on the steps of the supreme court. 13 years ago they were i'd delogically and legally and politically opposed to one another in that decision bush v gore in 2000. >> and you and i were there in tallahassee. for boys it's abut of ree

this is new video of ted olson, the attorney fighting to end prop 8.ntering the court which led some, especially in the social media realm, to suggestion there would be a decision today. now that there was no decision, the earlier we'll hearing will be on monday. the other new information is the court is considering adding another decision day next week. typically the court issues rulings on mondays and thursdays. we're hearing it may issue more rulings on wednesday as well as there are 11 rulings that need to be issued. includes prop 8 and doma. back here at home, clerks are ready just in case they strike down prop 8. >> we had a lot of inquiries from people calling in to find out what they need to do to get a marriage license and what they -- and can they be married here. they don't always say it's for post prop 8 ruling or not. but we're ready. >> the cherokee cherokee county clerk expects a 20% increase in weddings if prop 8 is overturned and they say they would not start to issue the licenses until they get more direction from the state. they say

you have people like ted olson who is leading the charge for marriage equality. be out of step and on the wrong side of history? >> polls come and go. the fact of the matter is -- >> these are people's opinions. it's clear that people's opinions are changing now. >> you asked me a question. you want me to answer or not. polls go up and down. 37 states have voted to reaffirm traditional marriage. the supreme court did not accept that argument and said each state will continue to define marriage for its own pruurposes. 37 states have done so. >> i want to read anthony scalia's dissent or a bit of it. he said the court had cheated both sides robbing the winners of an honest victy and the lose es of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. obviously you'd agree with that but why? >> i'm having a little trouble hearing you. justice scalia is a little miffed. they're not talking about defining it for purposes of state's law but for purposes of federal law. just one example on immigration does that mean the federal government has to defer to the states and will have dif

the only thing i regret today is my friend and colleague ted olson can't be here. he has been a leader in this battle the last four years. he is unfortunately today in another court in another part of the country arguing another case. but his spirit is here, and he will be with me tonight, and we will celebrate because this is a victory not just for us, not just for the plaintiffs, not even just for the people who have worked for this so many decades but for all americans. thank you. >> we want to hear from chris perry. these are the berkeleys be lest beeian couple, the couple who won. >> today is a great day for american children and families. sandy and i want to say how happy we are not only to be able to return to california and finally get married but to be able to say to the children in california, no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, no matter what family you're in, you are equal, you are as good as your friends' parents and as your friends. we believe from the very beginning that the importance of this case was to send a message to the c

we have ted olson to tell us about those cases. he has more than a passing interest in them. >> it is a daunting thing to attempt to deal with these two cases, which involve so many issues that are important to our society and our culture and to our political life in a short period of time. i will see what i can do. the good news is -- from my standpoint -- i represented the two couples that brought the proposition 8 case involving california's8, constitutional amendment adopted by the people in 2008 that defined marriage. it said only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized and ballot in california. the two couples that i represented got married yesterday afternoon. the ninth circuit listed the state that had been in affect since proposition 8 when it into effect as unconstitutional. people immediately began to get married. the two female individuals that we represented were married personally by the attorney general of california. the two mails were married by the mayor of los angeles. thousands of other people. wer

>> working with congress he has created the privacy and civil liberties oversight board on which ted olson is now a member. the president has made very clear as we fight for our principles, our first responsibility is to live by them. >> but how in the loop were members of this panel? well, they learned about the bush administration's terrorist surveillance program by reading the "new york times." and a report that the board wrote was heavily edited by the white house. one memory signed in protest. congress in 2007 made the board an independent agency, president bush nominated members in 2008 but the senate never took any action. president obama's turn came next and he promptly dragged his feet. he didn't even nominate everyone to the board until 2011 and his final member was not fully confirmed million may of this year, about a month before edward snowden began spilling the nsa secrets. for months they haven't had offices, no staff. let's go to their web site. wait, it doesn't exist. president obama told you about this board on monday and his first meeting with them is right now. joining

ted olson who fought for bush down in the bush versus gore fight in florida. and only one democrat.wo out of three guys, all straight i believe pushed through this thing. it isn't just a gay rights movement in a narrow sense. >> not at all. look, these decisions today are huge steps forward. and they're steps forward in what they ruled but also you're totally right in who ruled, it was involved in the case and this idea that lgbt civil rights are just some special interests that only a few americans care about who live in california or new york. that reality does not exist anymore. this is much more becoming a pain stream movement. i think that's what's going to help propel us forward. but i do want to take hometown pride. eddi is a new york gal and i want to thank her for her bravery. >> new york is a liberal state in this regard. not everything. not taxes sometimes. governor newsome, you were a pioneer, you were sort of like john brown in the pre-civil war days. you were so far out you got in trouble for him. if prop 22 came up today, not 22, prop 8. if this came up today that ban

. >> ted olson represented citizens united. i represented senator mcconnell arguing that corporations ought to have the right to spend their money to urge people who to vote for. >> rose: you believe in that? >> i really do. and especially the context of -- >> rose: some of your liberal friends are not happy with you. >> none of them are happy with me. but what i can't understand is how they would think that a documentary -- which is what the case was about. a documentary saying "you shouldn't vote for hillary clinton for president," how that could possibly be not protected by the first amendment just because a corporation gave money to help make it. for me, that's an easy case, not a hard one. but i'm way out of step with most of my liberal friends, that's for sure. >> rose: didn't the president attack it in his state of the union? >> in front of members of the supreme court. >> rose: who didn't like it. at least one of them. >> that's right. and the president, like a lot of other people who have attacked it, didn't happen to

we have ted olson to tell us about those cases. he has more than a passing interest in them. >> it is a daunting thing to attempt to deal with these two cases, which involve so many issues that are important to our society and our culture and to our political life in a short period of time. i will see what i can do. the good news is -- from my standpoint -- i represented the two couples that brought the proposition 8 case involving proposition 8, california's constitutional amendment adopted by the people in 2008 that defined marriage. it said only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized and ballot in california. the two couples that i represented got married yesterday afternoon. the ninth circuit listed the state that had been in affect since proposition 8 when it into effect as unconstitutional. people immediately began to get married. the two female individuals that we represented were married personally by the attorney general of california. the two mails were married by the mayor of los angeles. thousands of othe

>> it is like the absolute best they could possibly get, the highest was ted olson, a leading conservative appellate lawyer. he has a lot of big corporate clients. you would think this is not an issue that at that point -- this is a guide. we all know be argued cork and the bush, and the supreme court. would he take this case? and they kept calling him and warning him and took a long time before you finally agreed to do it. >> was there anything pivotal? coming to know what help to make up his mind? >> there is more and more publicity. it was helpful when an abc producer went down. with his camera. he came up and pushed him and not to mention saqqara. >> he was manhandled. >> all the publicity. >> and in saying that i recall that olson was intrigued by the case. he just felt like it didn't have enough scope. this needed to have the national ramifications. i guess the publicity helped. >> he thought it had national ramifications. sooner or later there were going to have to deal with this issue, but the court, in choosing their cases, they deal with some issues that they sense will have to c

. >> i think ted olson and david boies have some work ahead of them still. so, jeffrey toobin, thank you. you've been doing excellent work out there, very accurate and well-assessed. >>> other news we've been following, the breaking story about the nfl's aaron hernandez, currently under arrest, cuffed, taken out of his house by plains clothes, our legal experts look at his case and what the young man could be facing other than being fired from his football team. [ stewart ] we've never cooked anything like this before. [ male announcer ] introducing red lobster's seaside mix & match. combine any two from a wide variety of seven exciting choices on one plate! all for just $12.99, but only for a limited time. i'm stewart harrington, and i sea food differently. but only for a limited time. that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans,

but prop 8 was the one, the case where folks wondered, is the court really going to listen to ted olsonnd do the complete -- there's a constitutional right 0 marry, or are they going to punt on issue and declare that the folks in california who were trying to keep prop 8, they didn't have the standing, which would allow gay marriages to go forward in california without addressing the cosmic question as i call it. so what had sets up is sort of another shoe is going to have to drop. remember the court did not want to take the prop 8 case. they didn't want to have a this question. so what they've done is really by buy themselves some time and buy the country some time for more states on their own to adopt marriage equality so that when the next case oms comes, they'll be able to do it and hopefully by then the court will be completely different. >> i think it's more significant than that if i might. it's important to remember in equal protection cases particularly when it came to race, you rarely see the court issue this one fell swoop broad reaching decision. if you look at brown versus

and i have to say, i think one of the great legacies of this case is the pairing of ted olson, someone from the conservative right, with david boies, a prominent democratic attorney from the left. by putting them together, it allowed us lift the partisan veil from which he have always discussed this issue and finally shine the spotlight on the human faces, the faces of our plaintiffs, of their kids and of the thousands upon thousands of americans situated just like them. and i think that's our lesson. keep telling our stories. and we don't write off anyone. even governor wallace evolved at the end. so too, i believe, will the rest of this country. >> chad griffin, thanks so much. chad, we understand you're going to be flying back to california. there is a party tonight, correct? >> this entire team is on our way to california to celebrate tonight. and tomorrow morning i wake up and fly to salt lake city, utah to a red state. >> all right. and jeff and paul, we understand you're going to be on your way back to california as well with other plaintiffs in the case, sandy and kris. but tha

and this is why david boyds and ted olson, the two lawyers brought this case.ht people have the right to get married and gay people can't. and what state you live in shouldn't matter. the court tends to proceed cautiously. even liberals like ginsberg, i just did a piece on her, where she said i think roe v. wade went too fast. it would have been better to stick with texas and allow the states to go one on one, and i don't agree with her. if that were the case abortion would still be illegal in many states. if you move from massachusetts to alabama as a married same-sex couple, you are out of luck and will remain out of luck for the indefinite future. >> stephanie: yeah look at all of these egregious laws in state after state that they are trying to take away a woman's right to choose in one way or another. in some ways -- you have to report a miscarriage to the police within 24 hours or you can go to jail. >> and for all that we are talking about civil rights and voting rights and same-sex marriage, abortion will be back at the supreme court sooner rather than

i take kind of different angle when we look at california because ted olson did not go to the supreme to see them punt on this issue. what he went to the court to do was to impose a redefinition of natural marriage on the entire country. he failed to do that. you still have 37 states that will have, once this is works its way out in california, you'll still have 37 states that have either in their constitution or statutes, definition of marriage asman and woman. i don't think time is on the side of those who want to redefine marriage. those ramifications, the loss of religious freedom where you have bakers and florists and photographers forced to participate in same sex marriages, when the american public begins to see that, the loss of parental rights as their children are taught values inconsistent with what they're taught at home and see churches and organizations lose their tax exemption, i think americans will pause and say this is not what i gave a nod of affirmation to. >> richard. >> i think mr. perkins is talking from an old playbook. everybody looking at this knows the only

. >> representing the american foundation of equal rights, ted olson, david boyes, chad griffin, we allbattle. thanks for everything that you did because we wouldn't have achieved a victory today without all of you. thanks very much. and i would just like to say, i'd like to ask terry stewart to come up for -- say a couple of words. our entire legal team worked day and night to bring the victory home. i want to give him a chance to talk a little bit. ing. >> thank you. >> you never see me at podium without the opinion in my hand. i just want to add two words. one is that we're excited about getting marriage equality back and even though it's a standing rule, it's a victory and it upholds the district court decision. there was a parallel case as you know the doma case and a lot of people sort of thought about which case should go. >> as we continue to watch what is happening at city hall, want to take you live to san francisco's castro district this morning as well. there have been crowds throughout the bay area. what's happening there, terry? >> reporter: right now here at castro and ma

department of justice the great civil rights champion, great lawyer, ted olson. berkeley law alumni have done nothing less than shape and reshape the world in which we live. as we speak, berkeley graduates are continuing this work at every level of government and across today's u.s. department of justice covered clearly nearby office. [cheers and applause] where are you? there she is. iwas told she graduated never received her diploma for some reason. and never received her diploma for some reason. all right. we will hook you up. countless others have spoken out and sacrificed and organized in order to advance the singular promise that unites us this morning. live in an america that our forebears could only dream about. every one of them sat where you sit today. each was called upon to address the threats enter from the .ovel questions of their time it is your turn. it is your solemn responsibility and your humbling opportunity to act with optimism and fidelity to our most treasured as a bulls and live with abiding faith in yourselves and with one another treasur

ted olson to tell us about those cases. passing re than a interest so i will turn to you, ted. >> it is a daunting thing to with these two cases which involve so many important to e so ur society and to our culture and to our political life in a short period of time but i will what i can do. first, the good news is from my standpoint as i think most of i represented the two couples who brought the case ition eight hollingsworth versus perry. proposition eight, california's constitutional by the people ed as2008 that defined marriage -- it said only marriage between a woman will be recognized and valid in california. couples that i represented afternoon. yesterday the ninth circuit limited the been in effect since the district court decision struck proposition unconstitutional at 3:00 pacific time yesterday and people immediately began to get married. he two female individuals that we represented were married personally by the attorney the al of california and two males who lived in southern ka were married by the mayor of lo

sue or take it back to the ballot box and chad griffin at the hrc he brought this to court with ted olsonved in simple human dignity and freedom and liberty for everybody. regardless of their politics and these cases we may not be there with our legislatures yet. we're only getting a handful of republicans to support us. three republicans in the senate and three republican state legislators have passed where it passed legislatively. these two cases had huge backing for conservatives and republicans along with most of the democratic and progressive establishment. in amicus briefs, for example constitutional accountability center filed their briefs to get rid of doma and prop 8 with cato institute. that's how broad-based the opinion is on these decisions. you're going to see right wing evangelical heads explode. almost as fun as watching the verdicts be read was seeing the solitary holdovers from another era with their one placard standing alone not smiling and not feeling the love that was in the air. >> hal: it is a stunning turn and very uplifting, especially in the face of the vra strik

and then finally, some republicans like ted olson and even the former party chairman, ken melman, arguedally good for the party to embrace same-sex marriage. do you think it's good for the party? >> i would have voted the same way. because i think that's the right position. it certainly is the position representative of my district. >> why that's the right decision? >> that's what i believe. any candidate for any position, whether it's for the future nomination for our party for president in 2016 or for a member of congress or senate, they ought to espouse what they believe. this is all about the give and take of the battle of ideas. so whether you are a republican candidate espouses that or not, i think is not something that we ought to be stipulating. whatever he or she believes. >> could they win? i guess have attitudes changed enough that republicans would embrace that kind of nominee? >> that's why they have the election, right? what did yogi berra say, that's why they play the game. the nation is shifting in its view on this position. whether or not the party shifts i think is some

clock p.m., it is face the nation with texas state senator wendy davis, former solicitor general ted olsonand michael hayden, omer director of the national security agency and the cia. the sunday network talk shows are brought to you as a public service the networks and c-span. c-span radio re-airs the show beginning at noon eastern. the lineup is meet the press at noon, 1:00, abc's this week, 2:00, fox news sunday, and 3:00 cnn's state of the union. you can listen to them all on c- on 90 and oneard fm in the washington, d.c. area, and xm satellite radio channel 119. you can download our fewer -- our free app for the smartphone. or listen on the web at c- span.org. ontoday, american history tv c-span 3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> the monument behind me is the monument to the 20 fourth michigan infantry. the 24th michigan belonged to a larger organization that had become famous throughout the army as the iron brigade. they had a reputation for being pretty hard fighters. the 24th michigan brought 496 men onto the field. 363 of them will remain here as

finally, some republicans like ted olson and the former party chairman argued it's good for the party to embrace same-sex marriage, do you think it's good for the party? >> well, i would have voted the same way. >> the same way? >> yes. i think that's the right position. it certainly is a position representative of my district. any . >> why is that right the decision? >> that's what i believe. any candidate for any position whether it's for the future nomination, for our party for president 2016 or member of congress or senate. they ought to espouse what they believe. it's all about a the give and take of battle of idea. and so whether a republican -- espouses that or not, i think it's not something we ought to be stipulating. it's whatever he or she believes. >> could they win? i guess have attitude changed enough that republicans would have embraced that nominee? >> that's why they have the election; right? yo gi bear said that's why they play the game. that's, you know, the nation is shifting in the view on the position. whether or not the party shifts, i think it's something to be

and then finally, some republicans like ted olson and even the former party chairman, ken melman, argued it's actually good for the party to embrace same-sex marriage. do you think it's good for the party? >> i would have voted the same way. because i think that's the right position. it certainly is the position representative of my district. >> why that's the right decision? >> that's what i believe. any candidate for any position, whether it's for the future nomination for our party for president in 2016 or for a member of congress or senate, they ought to espouse what they believe. this is all about the give and take of the battle of ideas. so whether you are a republican candidate espouses that or not, i think is not something that we ought to be stipulating. whatever he or she believes. >> could they win? i guess have attitudes changed enough that republicans would embrace that kind of nominee? >> that's why they have the election, right? what did yogi berra say, that's why they play the game. the nation is shifting in its view on this position. whether or not the party shifts i thi

thank you to these plaintiffs, and the legal team led by ted olson and david boyd. what a magnificent job they have done representing thousands of him -- thousands of people in california and around the country. angst of the sister of decisions today, we are one step closer to finally realizing those words inscribed upon that building behind me. equal justice under law. today, at long last, this nation has wiped away the shame of proposition 8 and the discriminatory defense of marriage act once and for all. . they work of equality is far from complete. -- the work of equality is far from complete. we got to rise to this historic occasion with an urgent commitment, a commitment to the gaze -- the gay and lesbian americans in states without marriage equality. it took less than five years to strike down proposition eight. today, let us set a new goal. within five years, we will bring marriage equality to all 50 states. [applause] the lesson of the perry case, and these plaintiffs, is that we cannot wait for justice. because they thought tirelessly, every single day, to

we will bring you a panel discussion with contributor ted olson and linda -- linda greenhouse. about the cases to look for in the fall. this starts on saturday at 9:00 eastern. also on c-span. historyday, american television commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg and this past wednesday, senator angus king spoke on the senate floor about this battle. thursday is the most important anniversary, july 4, 1776, but tuesday, july 2 is one the most important anniversaries. july 1, second and third are the days of the battle of gettysburg occurred, the defining event of the history of the country and it is important that this year, the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. what i would like to do is share just a few moments about one particular aspect of that battle that does include the state of maine and the state of alabama. a man named joshua lawrence in 1862ain, who was, the professor of languages at bowdoin, maine. he decided he had a vision of america and he wanted to serve his country. regiment,a volunteer in august of 1862. up to washington an

achieve justice war and the great civil john doerr to a great lawyer and former solicitor general ted olson. over the last century, bjork -- berkeley law alumni have done nothing less than shape and reshape the world in which we live. as we speak, berkeley graduates are continuing this work at every level of government and across today's united states department of justice, including in my justice where margaret richardson, class of 2000 three, serves as my chief of staff and trusted advisor. -- class of 2003. [cheers and applause] , i was told when she graduated, never received her diploma for some reason. [laughter] you up,ing to hook margaret. we're going to to get your diploma. thank you to these dedicated leaders and countless others who have spoken out, who have sacrificed, and who have organized in order to advance the singular promise that unites us this morning. today we live in america that our forbearers could only dream about. before these talented men and women were providing critical leadership to our nation's legal community, every one of them that were use it today. each in

some republicans like ted olson or ken mehlman have argued it's actually good for the party to embracesame-sex marriage and do you think it's good for the party? >> i would have voted the same way. .hat is the right position that is what i believe. ,ny candidate for any position whether it's the future nomination for our party for president in 2016, they ought to espouse what they believe. give andll about the take of the battle of ideas. whether a republican candidate espouses that or not, it's something we are to be stipulating. >> could they win? has it changed enough that republicans would embrace that kind of nomination? >> that's why they have an election, right? the nation is shifting its view on this edition. whether or not the party shifts is something to be seen. >> going back to immigration, if immigration fails and it's the republicans part, they will be dead in 2015. do you agree with that? looking toward the next midterm, what is the republican message before passing what is seen at some -- seen as some messaging bills -- what is the message of past republicans? >> your f