but, look, this court can also go back to judge vaughn walker's ruling which was a broad and sweepingictory that looked at equal protection and it was in the realm of loving v. virginia and brown v. board. when you talk about doma, you don't have to look further than the plaintiff in this case. the aclu brought that case with edie. she had been married to her wife for 20 years. got married in canada. moved to new york and, unfortunately, her wife passed away. and you know what the government did when her wife passed away? they sent her a tax bill for $300,000. they wouldn't do that to you and your wonderful wife, and they wouldn't do that to other straight couples in this country. it's not fair. >> let's go to -- let's get revolutionary. we only have a few minutes. wonder looking at justice kennedy, maybe because he's irish, i'm just kidding, there's something about him i find very interesting. >> and from california. >> he's from california. if you look at the majority opinion in the case involving lawrence versus texas which was about outlawing or basically declaring sodomy -- anti-

judge vaughn walker didn't go for the big expansive constitutional right to marry that ted olson andid boies was hoping he would go for. he had a very narrow ruling. will the supreme court stick to that narrow ruling? if they do, same-sex marriage, assuming prop 8 is knocked down, then same-sex marriage could just be limited to california. and what we could end up have happening is a situation where you have something like 20% of the country where same-sex marriage is legal and if richard is right and doma is struck down as unconstitutional where you could have legally married same-sex couples in, say, california or new york who are then able to avail themselves of the 1,100 something federal rights that come with marriage, and yet gay couples, you know, who've been together for decades in states where marriage equality is not legal, you're setting up a two-class system there and a two-step situation where step one happens and step two is almost inevitable. >> as we think about this, everybody out there thinking about this it's basically two different lanes we need to watch with doma

struck prop 8 down on the same broad grounds, not that the ninth circuit did but district judge vaughn walker did here in san francisco, that would be the biggest ruling of all. that would have the biggest implication of all. >> because then you would have same-sex marriage in mississippi. it seems like the least likely place to have it, but then it would be a national rule. >> the court may not be ready to take that step against a backdrop where we have nine or ten states that have recognized same-sex marriage but that still comprise a pretty small geographic and even numerical minority. and you may not be able to count california as a true same-sex marriage state because same-sex marriage has come about in california not by virtue of the voters or legislature, but as a result of the federal court. >> there are three months virtually for the first time where voters approved same-sex marriage, so the political, the cultural if not the legal landscape have changed a lot in the past couple years. how does that affect the supreme court? how do they look at all that? >> various justices have made

so the judge in our case, chief judge vaughn walker, who wrote that historic ruling in this case, allowedhe intervening defendants, the proponents of prop 8, to intervene and to defend the case. on the doma case, a small group of folks on capitol hill out of the house have come together and are defending it because the federal government won't. at the end of the day this is unconstitutional, and everyone knows it. >> it's a day in history here. this could be a major moment in the court's history. look at what tom goldstein of scotus blogged last week. quote, i have never before seen cases i believe would be discussed 200 years from now. bush v. gore, obama care were relative pipsqueaks. the government's assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry or to refuse to recognize such a marriage is profound. so is the opposite claim that five justices can read the federal constitution to strip the people of the power to enact the laws governing such a fundamental social institution. you know, elizabeth, it's not like we're talking about rock of ages, the big surprise. we have nine