We get your chance to weigh in on the topic of samesex parents , and also todays proceedings at the Supreme Court. If you support samesex marriage and want to give us a call, you have a line. And for the lgbt viewers in the audience if you want to wayne and give your thoughts, there is a line for you. If you want to weigh in and give your thoughts, there is a line for you. You can also contact us on social media. As the usa today story in the paper points out, 45 years in the making, a series of cases have been heard over the last several years. Richard wolf highlighting today that in the last year alone, the number of gay marriage state have gone from 17 to 37 with more than 37 the Detroit Free Press today takes a look at one of the couples at the center of the debate. That is one of the profiles today in the Detroit Free Press of those cases stemming from this Supreme Court case. Outside, the naacps julian bond in line as well. Whether they make it inside or not depends on where they fall in line. Our whole show today devoted to those cases being heard at the court. We want to get your thoughts. The numbers are on the screen. Again, you can also post on our social media pages. And you can send us an email too. Charleston, west virginia, this is chuck on our line for those who support samesex marriages. What you think of todays proceedings . Caller im really looking forward to it and i hope the Supreme Court will dispense with the issue once and for all and hopefully samesex couples in the United States will have Marriage Equality. I think five years from now people will wonder what the fuss was about. I really dont think it can be a statebystate issue mainly because right now, for instance, there is in the constitution called the full faith and credit clause. It has been applied in a lot of ways, but it have also been applied to marriages. If you have a couple that goes to las vegas and gets marriage married and flies back home, their marriage is honored in all 50 states. But if you have a gay couple that is legally married in iowa and then they move south to missouri where they do not have Marriage Equality, does the state of missouri have the power to say that their marriage is null and void . And if that is the case, do they lose all of their federal benefits, such as survivorship under Social Security . This is just one of many reasons that i think the Supreme Court will decide in our favor. Host do you think they will make a clearcut decision . What happens if there is a mixed opinion where a state has to issue a license, but also recognize a marriage from out of date . Out of state . Caller i think it will be somewhat of a split decision. I would like it to all a little more heavily on the side of Marriage Equality. I do not see nep early constitutional reason i do not see any purely constitutional reason why they cannot make that decision, but i imagine thomas and scalia will probably vote against it. Host that is chuck. Mel, go ahead. Caller Marriage Equality is simply code language for marriage perversion. Marriage is something that is defined by god, not man. The Supreme Court justices ought to adjudicate in the fear of god , since they start their day off with a prayer. And the issue of traditional marriage doesnt really cut it, because in since defined by god, man doesnt really have any day. Any say. And i think these judges need to recognize that our rights come from god and if they fail to his knowledge him, what happens to our inalienable rights . Are they up for grabs at the this has implications are they up for grabs . This has implications beyond Marriage Equality. This is marriage perversion and our judges should not have anything to do it fit. Host that is mel from new york. By the way, there are no cameras in the Supreme Court, so we cannot show you the proceedings televised. But audio will be released at 2 00 today. You can hear that audio shortly after at www. Cspan. Org and you can also go to www. Cspan. Org for information on when we will air audio and pictures of the lawyers being before the court as the justices give their questions and the lawyers give their arguments. Go to www. Cspan. Org later on today for that information. On our im sorry, we just heard from mel. Here is michael from connecticut, go ahead. Caller im simply calling to indicate that i believe what the bible teaches. The bible teaches that god created male and female and it hasnt changed. He ordained and instituted marriage between man and woman. There is no way to get around that other than to disregard or discard the bible and i have been chosen to do that. Im standing in solidarity with all of those who oppose, plain and simple. Host in illinois, mike, go ahead. Caller good morning, pedro. I just want to say in reality there is no such thing as gay marriage. These people are not married in the eyes of god. Anything if this thing ever passes in this country, you are going to see gods wrath on this country like never before. Thank you, have a good day. Host again, that is some of the opinion from collars on todays proceedings. If you want to weigh in, the numbers are on the screen. Much activity outside the court, as you can see, from groups supporting samesex marriage and opposing it. You can hear them later on the audio off of www. Cspan. Org. Lets hear from tom from maryland on the support line. Caller hello. How are you doing . Host fine, thank you. Caller my issue is that even if it takes the heart of the opposition at its word, what that tells me is that the government should not be regulating it at all. It should be a civil union and churches that practice marriage should establish it recreationally. If you do not believe in gay rights, then you do not marry them. But as far as the government and giving you rights and privileges, it should not tangle itself. It is a problem in terms of adjudication. No matter how you are going to fight define it. Host on a variety of topics, a poll showed an estimated 780,000 americans currently in samesex marriages. And when it comes to those unmarried and living with a samesex partner that number rises to 1,000200. Again, that is from the gallup 1. 2 million. That is from the gallup organization. Ralph, good morning. Caller yes, sir, my problem with the gay marriage deal i dont care what people do with their own lives. But my problem is that when it passed these laws, they will also like they are doing in a few places now, the people that are getting married are going to be pushy. They dont want equal rights. They want to drive christians out. They need to understand this when they do this to christians, make them wait on this with the cakes and stuff like that, if they get their rights, they shouldnt trample on ours. If they do that to us and they do that to the muslims, i will claim a little secret. Theres going to be a horrible problem in the United States. I think the christians and the muslims, as many of us as they are, we could start boycotting them like they are boycotting us and we could run them all out of business. All people of faith that dont believe in great myth in gay marriage need to come together. And they need to be talking. We have left them alone and i dont care nothing about whether they get rights or not. But im saying if they get their rights, they are going to be of the prosecutor christians for not participating in their routine, because the vital the bible lamely says if you participate in what they are doing, you are equally guilty. The bible plainly says if you participate in what they are doing, you are equally guilty. If you start prosecuting all these christians and muslims you will see a lot of gay people who cannot be have a business. And all of these big shots these companies are joining in with the other people. I never thought nascar would do that against the law they made. I dont watch nascar no more. Im going against a lot of these companies that are going with the days, because i know what they are trying to do to christians. Host that is ralph from alabama. On your screen, Gloria Alfred one of the brisbanes the Court Proceedings today. Many dignitaries being highlighted in the long line of people waiting to get in for the Court Proceedings today. Dont forget you can see it with the audio later on at www. Cspan. Org. We have set aside a line for lgbt in the audience. Darien, go ahead. Caller thank you so much for taking my call. If you dont support gay marriage, then dont get gay marriage. The only argument people have is religion, but religion is not a universal thing. The bible is apparent in american culture, and they act like everyone follows it. That is not the case. God cannot be an argument. If god is someone that you feel you have a higher power and you look up to, that is wonderful. But that is not what you dictate who should get married. The people of the states get to decide if the people get to get married . It seems outlandish. It should be a universal thing. And obviously, the people inside the state who agree with gay marriage are going to against it vote against it. We are just looking to be treated like everyone else. Host robert is from washington d. C. On the oppose line. Caller the issue is not religion and is not a lack of humanity or love for people. It is what they are supposed to be, like men were like women. The issue is logic and social development of the future of families. The issue is, this group has taken advantage of families and human beings and society. You can see in societies with six wives, how about that . Those societies women have four wives, we persecute that. They are abusing that. Also with people who get married at 16 and 17 years old, that is an issue. It is not right. That is it ,period. Host the tear from george next in pennsylvania lets hear from george in pennsylvania. Caller i dont believe this law should pass because its not right. Its a perversion and is not the way god meant it. The bible says amanda is for woman and a woman is a man is for a woman and a woman is for a man. What is going to happen to our country . Its going to be filled full of a bunch of perverts. Host one more call. We have set aside a line for lgbt viewers in the audience. This is cliff in michigan. Caller i believe, and everybody i have talked to about this, if they would use another word other than marriage, union, united whatever it is, people would not be so upset. And one of them has to be the dominant person, just like with a husband and wife if there is a divorce and there are children involved. The guy loses the house always and hes got to go out. The wife gets the house and stays with the children. One of them has to be somehow the dominant person. I dont care if they number them one and two. I believe most people would not be upset if they did that. Host why do you think if they change the definition caller its not a definition. Its changing a word. They can keep all of the same laws and Everything Else. Host why would that change anything . Caller does the constitution say marriage is between a man and a woman . Does it say that clear . Host from what i understand, no. Caller so from what you understand, so you dont know what the constitution says then. We will all find out then. I believe most all of the people i talked to believe that if they would just change that word and not use marriage. Host the 14th amendment will be the center of argument today in all cases considered. Part of the 14th amendment reads no state so with that in mind and with this case being heard today, we have invited to key advocates representing both sides of this debate. W from brian brown, cofounder of the National Organization for marriage that opposes samesex marriage, and also evan wolfson founder of the freedom to marry group that advocates for samesex marriage. Coming up later, david savage. The Supreme Court and what he will be watching for during this mornings oral arguments. The car secretary Penny Pritzker outlined Workforce Skills and training development. Heres a portion of her presentation. [video clip] secretary pritzker our job is to try to set the conditions for American Businesses to thrive. If American Business is writing thriving, then they will create jobs and our economy will grow and we will have a prosperous society. Its a Pretty Simple formula. Without a workforce that has the skills that are in demand in an everchanging economy, the formula doesnt work. It is important, particularly because we at the department of commerce have a relationship with businesses. And ultimately at the end of the day, businesses need to lead by defining what the skills are that they need. I dont think that has been so clear lately. What do you learn when you go visit manufacturers of the 20 sure he . Secretary pritzker of the 21st century . Secretary pritzker im really excited about white became manufacturing day. For one, there was a real misunderstanding about what is clear manufacturing today, what is the interface between human and the machine that is necessary to make product in the 21st century. We have been working with manufacturers and last year we had 1500 manufacturers that open their doors to more than 3000 people in the u. S. , mostly great school through High School Kids with their counselors coming in and saying, oh, my, this is not my father or grandfathers manufacturing plant. Its a lot about computers. Its a lot about humans working alongside robot to create things. What have we learned . We have learned there is a real image issue with manufacturing. It is hard to know what that is and know what manufacturing means. We are trying to change the awareness and understanding so that families no longer say, oh my goodness, if my child goes into manufacturing as a career is that something that has longevity . For the First Time Since 2009 we are growing manufacturing output in the u. S. We have also grown almost 900,000 manufacturing jobs. Host again, more of that conversation with Penny Pritzker available on our website at www. Cspan. Org. There a page you can find and check it out for yourself later. As the Supreme Court meets today, two guests are joining us to talk about the Court Decisions and the implications of what the justices have to decide. We are joined by brian brown the president of the National Organization for marriage, and also joined by evan wolfson founder of the Group Freedom to marry. He is the founder and president. Gentlemen, if i read it correctly, at the center of the case is the 14th amendment. Why does it center on that particular amendment . Guest the 14th amend it embodies to central guarantees that are at take here, what is the freedom to marry itself, and the other is the constitution command of equal protection under the laws for all americans, that the government cannot discriminate against any of us unless it has a sufficient and sometimes compelling reason to do so. The denial of gay peoples reason to marry has been a refusal to allow gay americans like any other americans, to enter into this commitment based on love and security in being treated equally by the government. And there has also been a denial of equal protection because there is an there is no good reason for exclusion of gay marriage. 65 quarts and said that, and now we are before the Supreme Court hoping they will affirm, but what the majority of the American People have come to understand. Host what do you think about the argument in the 14th amendment to go ahead and litigate these cases . Guest i think everyone around this country who even has a entering of a smattering of looking at constitutional law and the history of this case would say, how can any judge claim that in passing the 14th of them and that somehow we got samesex marriage . And that is just the know when you would until now . That is preposterous. We are being asked to believe that in 1868 samesex marriage was at stake with the passage of the 14th amendment. That was not true, and only a few years after, congress said, utah and other western states, you cannot become states if you allow polygamy. All of the arguments evan is making, equally all of those arguments could be made, why not three or four or five people . There is nothing in the constitution that states that states have to redefine marriage and there is nothing in the constitution that is somehow a bridging anyones rights. It is a false analogy to compare laws that define marriage, laws based on marriage being between a man and a woman, defining them as anything that has to do with a long history of race going back before the 14th amendment. Host if the 14th limit is used in this case and the justices allow samesex marriages . Caller no, what gay people are not saying is lets have no rules. Gay people are saying, let us have what you have. Just as you have the freedom to marry the person that is precious to you, the person you want to build a life with and take responsibility for and be cared by be cared for by, government should not be putting restrictions on that choice based on race or religion or sects or any other categories. Categories do not follow love. People fall in love. And the government ought to make sure that we are all free in our exercise of freedom to marry to choose the person that we love without restriction, especially restrictions that have no good reason. And what we have seen over the years and through ruling and ruling and in court after court its not just my opinion is that when given a chance to come into court to come in with evident to show a reason for this restriction or that restriction, the government has not been able to do that. And mr. Brown and his group have not been able to come up with any reason that withstand the test of analysis. And that is why we are hopeful that the Supreme Court going to do what so many other courts have done will stop guest the reality is, the court that counts mainly is the court of Public Opinion in the ballot box. When we disagree on an issue people should have their votes counted and respected. Mr. Wilson going before the Supreme Court, that is not winning the law winning in the court of Public Opinion. Only three states through a public vote have in any way moved in the direction of samesex marriage. To say 37 states have samesex marriage is simply to say that in 37 states, judges that they had the right to trump the will of the people to impose their Public Policy views. And luckily, one circuit got a red got it right, the sixth. And the picture that evan is painting is simply untrue because one of the circuits did make very strong argument saying whatever the judges policy preferences are, the judge does not have the right to say the people have no voice in this issue, and also clearly nothing in the 14th amend it amendment protects samesex marriage. The reason we are in this issue is because the circuit courts did define marriage as between a man and woman. And he says we dont want to support polygamy. What about their rights . What about equal protection for people who want three or four or five people . You have to make the case as to why it is not abridgment of their civil rights in the same way he is claiming im doing, or that the millions of americans who are voting for gay marriage are doing. Host if you would like to join the conversation, the numbers are on the screen. My apologies, mr. Wilson, go ahead mr. Wolfson, go ahead. Guest 63 of the American People now support the freedom to marry up from 27 when i started doing the trial in hawaii. And the reason for that is that people have had a chance not to just here fear and scary stereotypes, but to think about real people and real values and to think about who gave people are and why gay marriage matters who gay people are and why gay marriage matters. That is why we have the majority of support under age 50. The other thing that mr. Brown gets wrong is that not everything in the United States gets put up to a vote. We dont vote on whether i like you and therefore whether you should have right. Well vote on whether you should have freedom of speech or whether mr. Brown should have freedom to marry or whether i we do not vote on whether you should have freedom of speech or whether mr. Brown should have freedom to marry or whether sometimes politicians get it wrong. When it comes to those individual freedoms that define us as americans we have the opportunity to say im being denied something i deserve. That is not a question of policy. It is not whether i like mr. Brown and he should have free speech. He has free speech. He has freespeech whether i like what he says or not because that is his right as an american and it is the constitution and the courts that enforce that. And that is why we are in court today, because states have taken away a basic freedom that belongs to every american. As the state have had a chance to think it through and the courts of looked at the arguments and the evidence, they say there is nothing that violates the constitution and that is my hope the court will affirm in this case. Host mr. Brown . Guest clearly, our founders understood that free speech was a key part of what our rights are. They did not think that samesex marriage was an essential right. You are seeing an attempt to create out of the history of the law something that does not exist. We have seen bogus polls like this. We saw them in california. One poll said about 63 of californians were going to oppose proposition eight. Instead, we won by 52 . Fastforward to North Carolina. Many polls predicted we would lose in North Carolina. Instead, visit vote the vote for protection of marriage one by 62 . The poll that counts is the fact that people went to the ballot box and voted in overwhelming numbers to support marriage as the union of a man and woman. The only way that evan and his group get around that is by making are committed that is more damaging to our civil discourse, and that is to say if all of those americans who voted for that all of those americans who voted for traditional marriage were bigots. That it was in a rational vote and it was motivated by animus. If the Supreme Court chooses to support this then do they think that those who know the truth simply will go away . No, just like what was done with row, you have created a polarization that will not go away. Just like what was done with roe, you will have created a polarization that will not go away. Host lets take our first phone call from bruce. Caller good morning mr. Brown im glad you are there. You are just the fellow i want to talk to. In 1971, i published an article called glitter and be gay and at the end of the article i suggested that gay marriage was an inevitability. The reason i want to speak to you this morning, aside from the fact that i am the grandfather of this issue as far as i know. As i say, somebody else may actually be ahead of me. But i dont know it. As far as i know i am grandpa. The reason i want to address you, sir, is that you are dead wrong on the year 1868. Two years before that, the only widely know gay person in america was walt wittman. He was walt whitman. He was introduced to Abraham Lincoln and his response upon meeting him was, i had no idea he was clear. Queer. He doesnt look what a woman to me. If Abraham Lincoln, the father of america, could not see through the stereotypes into the concrete bumper bunker where gay. For gay people resided then, then how will the law . The law has always been right as far as the option, but it has never been moved because of the concrete hideaway that your comfort requires of my conduct. Im sorry, sir. Gay marriage is coming, and it coming because of live like mine lives like mine and matthew shepard, who want protection for ourselves and the people we love and our children. We have no hope of living in the future p simply under protection of law. You have no peaceably under protection of law. You have no right to keep us from that. Guest we are entitled to our opinions, but not our facts. We are essentially arguing by folks by the way, you can support samesex marriage and not believe the United States Supreme Court should create out of thin air a constitutional right to redefine marriage. But again, what we just heard is essentially, if you can rewrite our entire constitutional history, then why not rewrite our history altogether . Now we are talking about Abraham Lincoln secretly supporting samesex marriage. We are talking about walt whitman meeting with Abraham Lincoln. Look, its very clear that no one up until maybe early 1960s, 1970s would ever make the claim that our constitution includes within it the right to redefine marriage. I think it was in 1971 1972, the baker versus nelson case goes to the supreme case. Its still a binding precedent. It said that the constitution supports gay marriage. The Supreme Court dismisses it. Why . It says this case is for want of a federal question. There is nothing in the constitution that creates the redefinition of marriage. And for the court to say otherwise, again, is not going to end the issue. Im hopeful that Justice Kennedy will see what im saying. I know that many on the other side think this is a done deal. I think you are counting your chickens before they hatch if you think it is just going to rule in your favor. Guest the one thing i agree with that he said is that it is not eight done deal until it is done. Guest good, we agree. [laughter] guest yes but it will not be over until we go to the people and if necessary, to the courts and an this dissemination. That is why we will keep winning and we will keep doing it. We have one in the last two years all kinds of state courts, federal appellate courts, judges appointed by democrat and republican president s and governors. We have all lost only three are for the last two years. 14 out of 19 republican appointed judges have ruled in the freedom to marry. And in all of those rulings, my favorite passage was something written by judge shelby indicates that was brought in utah. What judge shelby wrote was its not the constitution that has changed, but our knowledge of what it means to be lesbian or gay. That profound truth is exactly why the courts have ruled in our favor. It is because command of the constitution is always there equal protection for all of us. The freedom to marry for all americans. But at different times in our countrys history we have not always seen the other and we have not always understood the claim of color to full rights the claim of the minorities, the existence and claim of gay people to participate in americas promise. But as we open our hearts and see people for who they are and see them as americans, then we understand the constitution does apply to them. That is the transformation that will occur. It will be outliers and holdouts who refuse to see and refuse to open their hearts and minds, and clean to their prejudices and ideologies and do not go there. There will be son. There will be some. But that is why the courts have now been able to apply the law to the people they now see before them and to whom they have come to understand. Host lets go to beverly in chicago on the opposed line. Caller good morning. Can you please just let me get what i got to say out . I think this guy sitting here should take this argument up with god. God said a marriage is between a man and woman. He also said to mary and multiply. You cannot mary and said to marry and multiply. You cannot marry and multiply. This is gods rule. This is not mans rule. And another thing he said, is an abomination. Sir, what you will need to do is take it up with god, because he set the rules down. You could not have even been born circa makes it has not been from your mother and father. Been born, sir, if it had not been from your mother and father. God said man and woman. When he told noah to come up on the ark to my he said to bring female and male. Have you all forgotten about the bible . There is no such thing as a marriage between two men and two women. I dont mean to discriminate against you also but there is no such thing between two men and two women. God has domain over all of us. Host that is beverly in chicago. Guest beverly in chicago is entitled to her via. We have freedom of religion and freedom of speech and beverly can believe whatever she wants. Of the u. S. Is not a machine in which everyone persons views is imposed on everyone else. The way we protect beverlys freedom of religion is to make sure we do not use the government as a weapon to impose beverlys ideas with eagle who do not agree with everlys idea of what god with people who do not agree with beverlys ideas of what god wants. There are christians who support the right to marry. Many people of faith support the freedom to marry. More than 2000 clergy from across the country file a brief urging support to marry. Only a handful of voices were heard on the other side. But people do griffey green a do disagree and they have the right to do that. I would never try to change that. But we do not look to the courts to tell us what is right and wrong when it comes to religion. What we look to the courts to do is to enforce our constitution, and our constitution says all people are entitled to equal protection and freedom to marry. Guest the reality is that marriage laws are defined as the union of a man and woman. We are not discriminate against people. It is not equivalent with laws that ban interracial marriage. Lost like that were about keeping the races apart. They had nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is about bringing the two sexes together, male and female, connecting them with any children they might bear. I love the call from the lady that called earlier. We had 12,000 to 15,000 folks right on the mall, a diverse group. We had a huge row from the africanamerican and hispanic community. It highlighted the interreligious agreement on this issue. The catholic faith evangelicals, pentecostals, the overwhelming majority of believers worldwide and in the country know that marriage is between a man and a woman. Contrary to what evidence trying to argue, we are not about weaponize the government to punish gays and lesbians. That is totally wrong. We are standing up and saying that marriage is between a man and woman. And now the shoe was on the other foot. The freedom to marry campaign is saying it is ok to have your quaint religious beliefs, but keep them in the four walls of your church. But if you are a bigger or florist or someone who said i cannot in good conscience to take part in a samesex marriage ceremony, we are going to use the full force of government to marginalize or punish them. The thousands of people who gathered here, we are not going to abandon the truth of marriage. I am hopeful this of record does the right thing. But if Supreme Court does the wrong thing, evan has some idea that somehow the people of this country will abandon the truth of marriage and the role and there will not be any holdouts. And there will only be some holdouts. The Catholic Church and others will not just abandon their beliefs. We will work to amend the u. S. Constitution to give fine marriage to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Host you just heard from brian brown, the president of the National Organization for marriage. Joined by evan wolfson as well the founder and president of the freedom to marry. James is up next on our support line. Caller sir, can you hear me . Host you are on, sir, go ahead. Caller i kind of think both parties got it wrong. It appears to me that if youre going to respect human beings and youre going to respect the government and respect the bible as well, youre going to have to learn to get along with one another regardless of what the law says. That is what human audi humanality is. No one understands that we are just human beings moving forward. We are not moving backward. If that were the case, we would still be riding a camel. You can understand what is going on in the middle east right now because of what the bible says. And im truly quite religious stop i try to be. I am truly quite religious. I try to be. But there seems to be something wrong when people do not understand that respect and love is the answer to it all. Guest i think the color makes a very good point and it explains why the majority of americans have moved, including the majority of people if they. People of faith. Have moved because of values like the golden rule, treating people the way you would want to be treated respecting people sharing our space in our limited time on this planet and allowing people to fulfill themselves and find their path in life. And rendering unto caesar what is caesars and enter unto god what is gods. There are many people with values, people of faith and those who do not have faith, but are good people. And every real religion teaches you to respect one another, love one another, to be modest in your own using your ideas as a sword and in imposing them on others. And in the u. S. There is a severe for sphere for religion and for government. I believe in the idea of respect and treating others as we want to be treated is very important in america and is in short supply. And what of the places we have seen this is on the question of freedom of america. Most americans have stopped repeating the same stale prejudice lines that they have been taught, and instead have pulled back and looked at the real people and the real lives and said, let them share in the love and commitment and stability and protection. We now have 37 states where gay people can marry. And people have been marrying. And not in one of this these places have the gay people used up all of the marriage licenses and deny people of anything. People have strict in their lives and kids have walked a little taller knowing their parents are respected. Mr. Brown likes to bring up issues that are not related to this question because of his larger agenda of opposing any kind of protection for discrimination against gay people. Mr. Brown believes that businesses who go into the license to the marketplace should have a special license to discriminate where if anyone just says the word religion, they are able to turn away the people they dont like. But that is not the law in the u. S. For decades, we have struggled to create a balance that allows us to have both religious liberties and civil rights. What the law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says is, when you go into business, you serve the public. You dont turn people away based on religion or race or now Sexual Orientation. Guest it is hard to know where to begin with the falsehoods that are being put forward here. It is about love and it is about civil rights, but the government didnt create marriage. The government recognizes something that was prior to the state. Marriage and family are profoundly progressive institutions. They teach children the reality that mothers and fathers are both important. And they are not interchangeable. The claim that somehow i personally or nam supports discrimination against individuals is patently false. It is not for a business to say it is not for individual to say to a business, i will not be coerced into taking part of a ceremony with which i can never agree. The reason of faith the majority of americans do believe that marriage is between a man and woman and they should not be coursed by the government to go against that. When you are shutting down adoption agencies, Like Catholic Charities of boston recently, or in illinois, because they will not place children with samesex couples and then using that as a bludgeon and say you will not place them anywhere at all if you do not place them with samesex couples. That is about using the law to punish and repress and marginalize those who disagree with the new idea of marriage. Guest its also not true. Mr. Brown comes on tv and he repeat the same tough, but he is unable to say it the same stuff, but hes unable to say it in court because you look at the oath of telling the truth under cross examination. Guest i would like to finish. Guest please do. Guest look at boston Catholic Charities and in illinois. Guest exactly and what happened there was they were told they could not have government funding if they refused to discriminate if they were going to discriminate. You cannot take taxpayer money and give it to people who dont play by the rules. [indiscernible] guest it was because of antidiscrimination clause, not because of government funding. Guest if anything was at stake here, it was antidiscrimination laws. That has nothing to do with who gets a marriage license. Guest other groups in illinois were placing them for adoption without placing them with samesex couples and immediately after the redefinition of marriage they were told they could no longer do that. Ask yourself a question, why . Host let me take another call. For those of you in the community, the Lgbt Community wanting to weigh in, andrew is in florida. Go ahead. Caller i just wanted to tell of an evan that i really appreciate the work he is doing for us. And i know its hard sometimes when people like to get on here and say very hurtful things. I just wanted to tell you that i really appreciate what youre doing. It means a lot to me. I came out to my family this year not this year, in september of this past year. And it was very difficult for me , because my mother and father are very religious people. I felt like i was letting them down when i told them, and they could not have been more accepting of me. I really wanted to tell you that, what you are doing right now even though there are a lot of people who come on here and say very hurtful things and im sure its hard sometimes, but i just wanted to let you know that those people dont make up the majority of people. The majority of people want people like me to get married and do it lawfully. I want to let you know that, that people like Sam Brownback can rollback legislation that protects gay people like me, and greg abbott can cut a cake in stellar in celebration of his state ban on gay marriage, they dont make up the majority of people. Im very hopeful that after a lot of depression and hardship that ive gone through, i hope in a few weeks that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of my right to marry. All ive ever wanted is to have the same rights as people and to be treated as a normal human being. Im very grateful for people like you evan. People like you are the reason why i have a voice in america. I just couldnt sit by and let people come on here and say that me getting married is a perversion and all these horrible things. Host ok, andrew, we appreciate you telling us your story. Mr. Wolfson. Guest andrew, the courage you shared in coming out with your parents gave them the courage to push back on some of the ugly stuff they have been taught and to see love and to see you as a person and to see the right thing to do. That is the majority the journey the majority of americans have taken. There were always unfortunately be some who cling to ugliness who cling to division, who cling to hurt and who refuse to see what is in front of them. But actually, the great thing is that by enough people speaking out and opening their hearts other people do right for fairness. That is why i feel great for the opportunity we had to do with the court said we need to do, to let people understand who we are as gay people, to let people think about what it might mean to be told you can never have the dream of finding the person you love. What would it be like to have a lot tell you that your love is unworthy . Everything you do does not count and then to go forward and to try to undo civil rights laws in the backward direction to be able to say that you should be shut out of businesses and turned away, that is not the america we want. That is not the america we actually have. And it is because people like you in difficult circumstances have had the courage to believe in yourself and to believe and others that they, too, most of them, will rise. It is a very heartening thing. And as why we are seeing the rights of the legal progress because we have told our stories and come out and help people understand who gave people really are. Host mr. Brown. Guest obviously he has gone through a difficult time, and we need to pray for and care for anyone who is going to a hard time. Guest what would you do to help that caller . Guest the truth is that the reality of religious liberty is important, and civil rights are not being a his civil rights are not being abridged in a country that values mothers and fathers. Marriage is something unique and special. Its not going to solve the problems of those that actually do wish to discriminate by redefining marriage. In the call, we are the idea if only im allowed to get married or cap gays and lesbians to get married. Gays and lesbians have had the right to choose, but they dont have the right to redefine marriage. The idea that presenting this is somehow solving all of these other problems, no. It will create more problems like we are seeing on the attack of peoples fundamental rights when you bring up this attempt to equate dissemination with folks not wanting to take part in a samesex Union Ceremony equate discrimination with folks not wanting to take part in a samesex Union Ceremony. Do you believe you are not punishing a pizza parlor down the street because it says its not going punishing the 70yearold because she does not want to use her talents to create a floral arrangement for a samesex unit Union Ceremony. Do we really think that is american . This is not about discriminating against individuals. It is about a core concept. Are we truly a country where people can disagree . Believes what a majority of churches and others believe. Or are we going to be told it is a gated, it is prejudice, it is people claim to some outmoded view of thinking . Is that really the country we are, that the understanding of marriage that cultures and societies have had for thousands of years host guest i never used the words hatred and bigotry. What i did say is that mr. Brown gets one thing fundamentally wrong here among many. That is he keeps talking about redefining marriage. Gay people are not out there trying to redefine marriage. The courts are not redefine marriage. Marriage is not defined by who is denied it. When gay people share in marriage, it does not redefine marriage. It does not change marriage. Mr. Brown is still married to his wife. I have been still married to my husband. We share marriage. We found the person we love, we found someone who will put up with us, and we built a life together. That commitment we made to each other has been respected now under the law for both of us. It did not take his marriage away. It did not redefine it. It meant more people can share in it. That is what the American People are seeing. Mr. Brown loves to use that phrase. It has nothing to do with redefine. Guest we have two different views of marriage care mine is this some a fundamental and biological reality of male and female that mothers and fathers and husbands and wives are unique and special. You disagree with that. They can the question and saying folks on this side, we do not believe the state created marriage. Guest i have a mother and father. We are going to celebrate my parents wedding. We are still families. Gay people become a family and people form families. What the law ought to do in a free country is respect the freedom and the family in this precious time on this planet. Host alice from North Carolina. Go ahead. Caller i would like to bring one thing out on the constitution to their there is such a thing as freedom of religion. You look at it this way, the correct way, i have the right of a priest or a pastor to refuse to marry a gay couple because of my religious beliefs. There is no such thing with gay marriage. We believe in god and we will marry normal people. That is the way it is. If they feel if they are committing a sin, you cannot force that upon them. The other thing with the Supreme Court, i would like to bring this up, which is very good, the Supreme Court, everyone swears on the holy bible, therefore the Supreme Court recognizes the bible and one god. There is no gay marriage in the bible. Therefore, the court forced themselves and forced people and religion to change their religion or force them into things, that they feel they are right, and they are a bunch of hypocrites because people swear on the bible and they live by the bible saying it is one god of his, one law, how can they force them on the state . Guest here is something i agree with that caller on to her he is right, the government has absolutely no authority and should never be telling a clergy person, if that is what he is, who ordered who he or she must marry. Every church or synagogue or mosque is to decide who they will marry, what they will teach about that marriage, whether they want to teach that someone else is wrong or has a bad idea or is a sinner or whatever. They have every right to do that. That is up to the people of faith and the house of warship and the clergy. Government can never dictate to them what they can do. Religions should not be dictating to the government who gets a marriage license. That is how we protect the freedom of religion the caller is talking about. I would be the first one out there to defend, if there were ever a lawsuit forcing a minister to perform a wedding he does not want to do care when florida ended the exclusion of gay people for marriage, they did not say for anyone you have to issue this license, you have to celebrate the wedding. What they said the government in issuing licenses. Guest at least evan believes in one of the Core Principles of the First Amendment at least pertains to a pastor who should never be forced to marry a people of samesex. You are only giving us a chrome and acting like this is what liberty is. We have gone so far as to say mennonites certain religions do not have public schools. All sorts of things to respect peoples consciences and freedom of expression. The problem is it will not be america if we had Police Coming into church saying, you better marry this couple or you will be arrested. That is asserted for example the Catholic Church refused to place children with samesex couples. Individuals who believe and act out man or woman. I believe marriage is based on a fundamental reality of male, female husband and wife. Samesex marriages will never be and are not marriage. That means those of us who believe this truth are may be put into positions where we are essentially conscientious objectors, or we have to say no, we cannot do that. That is not only the pastor or priest who says he can never marry a samesex couple. It is also an individual who can be colors or punished and do not use their skills. Caller people always say we are promiscuous, that we are not serious about our relationships and when we say we want to be responsible adults or have the same responsibilities being marriage married is not just about getting married, but Everything Else that comes with it and being a responsible citizen, like a responsible homeowner, like paying your taxes. Its the same thing. The whole idea of marrying six people that is insane. Thank god you did not say beastie out appeared i wouldve had to put my foot through the freaking tv. The other thing i need to say is when you talk about marriage, youre talking about the divorce rates among heterosexuals is so high that if you guys have to take up an issue, maybe that is the issue you have to take up. In terms of procreation there are thousands and thousands and thousands of heterosexuals who get married and never have children. If that is a requirement, maybe they should not be getting married. There are a lot of these particular requirements you are using that do not apply. Our society has changed. Host you put it all out there. We will let our guest respond. Guest has an interest in marriage is because of procreation. There is also an issue marriage brings together, male and female. The reality, traditionally we say the unity of procreative aspects of marriage, that is what marriage does. As far as having my cake and eating it, too it goes back to the key question of, what is marriage. I have already talked about the reasons why marriage is by definition a union of man and woman and the consequences of redefining it. That is not necessarily a question for the court. They have a different question which is, does the u. S. Constitution require that what has never been the case in this country will, that the federal government dictates marriage across the country is based not on the reality of male and female, but two people. Again, you say society has changed and no one is advocating for 6, 7, or eight people. Actually, they are part and number of scholars signed this which essentially advocates for exactly that. If you make that argument, what about back in 1971 . Almost no one was thinking about samesex marriage, and yet we are at the point where it is at the Supreme Court just because no one may be talking about the issue, does not that mean it logically does not follow. If evanss argument is right the binary nature of marriage is gone. Marriage is based upon the comp metairie male and female it once you do away with that and your argument is all about, love makes a family. Not childrens needs. Are you discriminating against me if i say, i love 2 3, or four people . Is that discrimination . Guest categories do not fall in love and get married. Men do not fall in love with all women and marry all women. Africanamericans do not love all africanamericans. People fall in love with people. In this country, the basic freedoms we have as americans are basic freedoms, based on the idea that each one of us pursues happiness and contributes paired gay people have the same desire to be able to love and commit to and take responsibility for under the law, the person who is precious to him or her. Whether it is a man or a woman that is in each one of our hearts and life journey. What business does the government have imposing on you you have to marry a latino, or a man, or woman, or a ju . These are choice that the long to each person. Part of what makes of the person we fall in love with. There are another set of voices that will be resonating in the art. That is, the children being raised by gay parents today. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of children being raised by the parents they have, the parent they know, the parents who love them, their gay parents. The exclusion of gay marriage harms those children or familys integrity, respect, and support that comes with marriage through the parents to the kids. For that reason, the American Academy of pediatrics, the American Medical Association the national association, every leaving Public Health and Child Health Care urging what other courts have done, recognizing that denying marriage harms real kids and real families while hoping no one else. Host this is melissa. Go ahead. Caller ive heard mr. Evan say about three different occasions equating the gayrights moving movement with the civil rights movement. I really wish the homosexual community would stop that, ok . If you have a man or a woman walking down the street, one of them are gay, how do you know which one is gay . You dont. But you know which one is black. You can sit here and try to say well the gayrights movement is the same as the civil rights movement, it is not the same. You can tell when an africanamerican is walking down the street. You are discriminated against because of your options if you are discriminated against at all. You sit here and try to say the Africanamerican Community somehow is supporting or somehow should sympathize with the homosexual community because of discrimination, is ridiculous to me. You do not know someone is gay until they profess it. Second of all, you are redefining marriage. If you look in the dictionary, marriage is between a man and a wife. Wife meeting female and husband meeting mail. When this goes before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rules, that definition will have to be changed. You are redefining what a marriage is. It is not going to stay between a male and a female. It will say between a male and a female, a male and a male, or a female and a female. To say that, you are not trying to redefine marriage, i think that is absolutely ridiculous. I think you need to reexamine that again. Guest for many decades, women were not allowed to vote. We fought hard in this country about that. Women wont the vote. It did not redefine what voting is parity did not change voting. Met more people were able to vote, as they always should have been. This is not redefining anything. Of course, dictionaries do reflect the law is. The law in this country and in 20 other countries is that in most places, kate gay people can now share in the freedom of marry. It does not change what marriage is more people are doing what marriage is. On the first point, when president obama and his second in ogg real address in this state of the union, talked about freedom to marry as part of americas civil rights journey. It was the president who use the word. He was right. He was right because what civil rights are are the ability of each one of us to participate fully and equally in society and in americas commerce without being excluded based on a characteristic such as race or religion or Sexual Orientation or sex. Are all the experiences of those kinds of scrimmage and sustained . No they are not. The caller is correct the way in which africanamericans experienced discrimination may be different from the way in which most italianamericans experienced discrimination or immigrants. Were women. Or gay people. They do not have to be the same to actually partake of the same injustice. When you are denied something important because of who you are, whether he be a characteristic people see on your face, or that they see when you are true to the love you have it triggers discrimination. If it triggers discrimination, the question is, should it be allowed . Should the government engage in that discrimination . When i gay prison cease to marry the person he or she loves, just the same as a nongay person does, there is a moment of potential discrimination and were ending that. Guest im glad so many colors are catching the false analogies are being made. Of course voting should have nothing to do with our gender. But of course, marriage does. You take all of these other rights as an does, and says these are all rights, so we must have the right to redefine marriage. Marriage is based upon this distinction, not all distinctions in the world are bad. Some, motherhood and fatherhood, being a husband and being a wife, are good. The reason the state has an interest at all and the overwhelming majority of countries about the world, 200 and so members of the united nations, only 19 have moved in the direction of samesex marriage, only one has been forced by a court to do that. The majority of countries throughout the world understand this truth and have rejected time and time again, even at the european community, at many Different Levels of law, they have said there is no fundamental right to redefine marriage. Because again, america is based upon the reality of male and female. Voting obviously was not. The analogy just does not stand, just as it does not stand to race. Theyre not the same. Guest the problem with mr. Brown passes point it is easy to say now when they have lost the battle to deny women the freedom to vote, when they lost the battle to prevent africanamericans to participate in its racial in interracial marriage guest to assert somehow we supported and guest i cannot speak for you. Please stop using my airtime. Guest that they are somehow the equivalent of racists guest what i said is we all know in this country, there have been battles in which the majority at one time believe certain things and people had to work to change it. Then there are those who resist that change even after it happened. There are people who did not want women to have the freedom to vote or people who did not want interracial couples to america people who did not want africanamericans and white people to share guest you are making my point for me. Guest my point is that it is easy when those battles are done to say, oh, well that one was fine. Even so the briefs filed in court, and the organizing done make the same arguments made to justify the discrimination at the time. It is easy to come back and say well that what is different. The reality of the story of america is, we going to court come we hold up our constitution, and we see what the command is, and we as americans are better off when the country moves to embrace civil rights. Host as the Court Considers these questions today, these two gentlemen sit down. Brian brown, the president of National Organization for marriage. And evan wolfson of freedom to marry. They hear these cases today. David savage will be along to explain those things for us. Do not forget, you can hear the audio argument today just after 2 00 on cspan. Org. Then we will show you those later on on our network. Go to our website for more information more on todays what is going on in the Supreme Court right after this. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] that is what marriage is about, to raise a family. Ok, old people cannot get married anymore. Adamant eve, eve came out of adams rip. Everybody knows that. Rib. Everybody knows that. Steve did not come out. Every body knows eve came out. It should be one man one woman marriage. I dont know. [indiscernible] host justices will hear several cases today. Audio will be released at 2 00. To talk about the details, david savage the reporter of the Los Angeles Times and the chicago tribune. Good morning. Can you explain shortly how we got here today . Guest the constitution protects the right of liberty and equality. A lot of people have gone to courts in the last years and say, marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has said that the i have equal rights. Why can the state discriminated against me, our couple, and deny us marriage . The Supreme Court, about 12 years ago, Justice Kennedy wrote a strong opinion that said world disapproval is not the basis for discriminate against people. That is not a justification for the loss. Justice scalia and the defense said if moral disapproval is not a justification, how do we stop people from going and saying i have a right to marry . In other words, Justice Scalia knew what was coming. After that decision in 2003 massachusetts recognized a right to gay marriage, and other ever since then, the movement is moving state to state. It is the same basic argument. Marriage is a matter of liberty. The 14th amendment says states must give people equal protection under the laws spirit he put together liberty and equality and the samesex couples are saying, why not us . Why can we marry . That is basically where we are today to that is the question they are posing to the Supreme Court. Host who is the one to watch as far as justices themselves . You mentioned anthony kennedy. Guest yes, it is interesting. He was a reagan appointee and relatively conservative. In every important game race gayrights case, he has been the one who has written the opinion. He has got a very strong view about protecting liberty and privacy. He has also made the argument that you cannot justice from against people because you do not like them. He has not ruled in favor of gay marriage yet it what he has written has sort of laid the groundwork for what is coming. There are with the court four generally liberal justices, four pretty strong conservative justices. Justice kennedy is always the one sort of in the middle because he is with the conservatives about two thirds of the time. He was the author of the Citizens United opinion. But he is also been with liberals on a few key issues and this is one of them. That is why going into this, if you say, how do you think it will come out, most people will think Justice Kennedy, if he is with the liberals, there is a 54 majority in favor of it. Host where has Justice Kennedy been on states rights issues, and how does that play into possibly what he might do . Guest that is one of the competitions because in the windsor case, the case about the defense of marriage act, part of Justice Kennedys opinion said marriage is always been a matter of state law. If you believe that, you might think, wait a minute, each state should be able to decide for itself. That is actually one of the important issues to watch in the argument today to see what he says about states rights. There are a fair number of times the states lose if they run up against some constitutional right. That is why this is a tough question. On the one hand, the state attorneys make the argument that marriage has been a matter of state law, why not let our Voters Decide . It is a statebystate matter. The other side says, the u. S. Constitution gives individuals Constitutional Rights that exist in every state. This is a matter of a constitutional right, they say so the state is on one side and the constitutional right is on the other. Host is the sense of the justices that they finally have to weigh in on this decision once and for all . Guest yes. They have passed on it. They now have a situation where three or four u. S. Appeals courts in chicago, denver, san francisco, have ruled that gay marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. The sixth circuit court, four states went the other way and said, no, this is a matter we will leave to the states. If you have to say what the Supreme Court really needs to do day after day, they need to weigh in when the federal law and the constitutional law means one thing and one part of the country and one thing and another. The answer to your question is yes, they have to say which is it. Host david savage 20 yes. Los Angeles Times and the chicago tribune, here to talk about the proceedings of the court today and answer your questions on it. If you support samesex marriage if you oppose it four lgbt viewers lets hear first up from laurie in west virginia, a supporter. You are on with david savage. Lori, go ahead. Caller my thoughts are, if marriage were not elite a legal issue, it would be fine as a religious person. I believe in a man and a woman as marriage, but it is a legal issue. To me, it has to do with everyone having the same rights in the constitution. We are all equal. I just believe it should be legal because it has to do with being a legal issue. I lost my train of thought, but that is what i mean. As a christian, i cannot support it. That as an american, i have to because of the legality. It is a legal issue that people have the same rights and they should be able to be married. Guest that is a very good analysis and an interesting way to view it. I took it from what you said you might have some reservations about gay marriage on a personal level, or a religious level but civil marriage is something the state licenses. Christian passages pastors do not have to be a part of them. It is a legal matter and if the Supreme Court upholds gay marriage, that is what they will say, that this is a state licensed, and the states may not discriminate against or deny gay people through equal protection of the laws. Host from kentucky lgbtq viewer. You are on. Caller i have got a question. My church, we perform marriages for anyone who wants to be married. Now the state tells us our seal we put on our documents saying it is illegal and not accepted by the state, so therefore, our religion is not recognized at a state. We support gay marriage, we support gayrights, we support everything because they are human beings also. We are not secondclass citizens. We are firstclass citizens. Im asking why is this happening. I served in the military. Id did everything i can. I am not even a citizen sometimes. Guest that is the issue before the court right now. He could be resolved by june. Let me see. Your church can marry someone but the state of kentucky can say our voters in 2004 passed an initiative that said marriage is limited to one man and one woman. So the state of kentucky can say and have said we will not accept recognize, or honor any such marriages, but that is the issue before the Supreme Court. It is one of the cases, the Supreme Court disagrees with that, they will be saying kentucky must honor all such samesex marriages and may not discriminate in that way. By late june, stay tuned. The problem may be solved in kentucky. Host from North Carolina. You are on. Caller i oppose samesex marriage i hope they stay to the values we were founded on. Host ok. When you talk a little bit about, tell us a little better about this persons role they will play. First of all, an attorney for the samesex marriage couples, some of them, what is the role . Guest mary is one of the most important attorneys around the country. If there is a single attorney who is done the most to advance the cause of gay marriage, it is mary. She brought a case in vermont in the late 90 pop the late 1990, and they were the first to say, you may not this committee against gay couples and that led to the civil unions law. She then brought a lawsuit in massachusetts that in november of 2003 resulted in the first rolling in favor of samesex marriage. The Massachusetts Law said this is a matter of equal rights, and later on, she launched lawsuits against the defense of marriage act. The federal defense of marriage act said regardless of what the states do, we, the federal government will not recognize gay marriage is, so by that point, thousands of couples and for example, massachusetts had been legally married, and yet they cannot file a federal tax return. Ended up with the Supreme Court striking is down. Gayrights groups i think in this case said, we ought to really, only one attorney can step up to make the argument. We will have mary do it because she has been the leader. She is the first one up. Courts divided today, even though it is four cases, they essentially divided into two questions or you will hear a 90 minute argument on the big question which is, isnt there a right to marry, must the states license samesex marriages, and marys side has 45 minutes in the state attorneys have 45 minutes. And then you will hear a second 60 minute argument on what seems to be a subsidiary question, but it came up in a couple of states. Must a state recognize a legal marriage from the other states . I think the court will hear this because it is the issue that will come up in tennessee and ohio but if the answer to the first one is yes, the second one seems pretty obvious. They will sit back and think, we know how this will come out. They can say to tennessee, somebody is legally married in new york and i moved to nashville p they are still legally married. Tennessee does not have to allow new marriages under tennessee law. John was an attorney representing the state of michigan. He has come back to argue this case. A very adept and good attorney. The statess argument really is , this is not about marriage. It is about who decides that the constitution does not decide this, so we, the voters, leave it up to michigan statebystate. We are not antigay marriage or whatever. But this is a matter the same court should not decide the whole country. Leave it up to the states. Caller good morning. Many countries in the world, including countries like mexico, hello. What is really going on with the United States of america . Host he made the argument that many countries across the world are excepting of gay marriages and he is saying, why are we taking a different stance on this . Guest to allow it . Well this has moved different ways around the world. A lot of states have been slowly moving. I think other countries in the world, like the United States some states move forward to other states are fighting hard to say this is a traditional marriage of what we should stick with. I do not exactly, i find it very interesting to see how social matters change in this country and around the world. A classic example where most people have said they cannot think of a major social issue or public sentiment has changed more in 20 years than this one. Even the gayrights activists backed by five years, they would not have told you that they thought in their lifetime within 20 years, that gay marriage could be a reality. They did not see it. They did not see the country changing that fast. Host if the justices look at the constitution, how much of a change because of states changing their minds, how much goes into the interpretation of the text and ultimately the decision they have to make . Guest it depends on which justice you are talking about. It is a classic dispute on how you read the constitution. Justice scalia is perhaps the most prominent advocate of the view the court should decide based on the original meaning of the constitution. Everyone agrees one the 14th amendment was added after the civil war, which said the states may not deprive people of life, liberty, and deny them equal protection no one at that time was thinking, this is about gays and gay marriage. Justice scalia says, if that was not what people thought then, and we should not read it that way now, Justice Kennedy and the liberal justices are much more of the view that times change and people have a different understanding of liberty. For example, there were no womens rights in 1868. We would not say, well, it is ok for states to discriminate against women and deny women rights. We say, it is a matter of equal protection law. You cannot do that. I think liberal justices say we should interpret the words liberty and equality with what we understand today. The second part of the argument is, i think it is one of the really important facts as time goes on, states have had to struggle more to say, why not to gay marriage. What is the problem . What is the justification . Usually, if a state will discriminate in some way you have to have a justification. My favorite silly example is if you go to medical school and get a medical degree and i read a lot of medical books at home and you and i go to the state they give you a license to Practice Medicine and turned me down, i cannot say, wait a minute, im discriminated against. Everyone says, of course the state can discriminate against you or in favor of you because most laws, it is very interesting to say, what is the justification with discrimination . What cant what comes up judge after judge, they say what is the justification for denying . In one case, there are two nurses in michigan raising four foster children. Multiple children abandoned by their mothers and raised by these two women. The state has allowed them to individually adopt the children, raise them, but says no, we will deny them the right to marry. I think it is one of the harder questions, that this court says ok, we understand about the point, but what is the justification what is the statess point . Why shouldnt they be able to marry . Host david savage joining us. Miami, florida, a member of the Lgbt Community, hello. Caller good morning. I particularly enjoyed this mornings program. It is very respectful and i like hearing that. We are intelligent people. Basically most of the hatred comes from the church. I was years ago a member of a baptist church. They refused to let blacks into the church. That has come about because people took action against that. It is basically fueled by the church. Everybody wants to have someone to look down on. Since they cannot look down on the blacks anymore, they are now trying to look down on the gay people. My partner and i have been together for many years. We do not want to get married, but we want the choice. If youre going to call yourself a home of freedom, you cannot act like this. Equal means equal. I thank you. Host we will hear from cindy up next, illinois. Hello. Caller my comment is as a special ed teacher, i see my son works in a predominately black school. The kids come up to him and say one of them, he is white, he said, i wish you were my father. In homes where the father leaves the reason god said it was a sin, i do not think it was because god create all people. He is saying anatomically, the mother nurses her baby and the father protects and has a role for the children. What it means to be a male and a female. I think to say all religions are doing this to hate gay people is a fallacy. If our god had said there is a role and anatomically, it is a perversion, that does not mean someone thinks these people should not be respected. To take the definition of marriage away is, for a christian, undermining what god set up. It does not mean anyone should be harmed or discriminated against. But it is a fallacy to say all religions are against gay people. I believe god created all people. Guest the religious dispute about this will continue regardless what the Supreme Court does. No church, no pastor, has to perform or recognize gay marriage. That would continue without any role of churches. I think this is the kind of disagreement that will outlast the legal case. Host oklahoma, jim. Caller marriage and matrimony as a Christian Judeo practice of their religions. By following the 10 commandments, i guess that is what i would adopt. As far as the government is concerned, several unions give license that everyones receives, and it does not matter whether they are marrying marriage male and female or how they marry. Let the religion continue, as it does establishing what churches except. Catholic church does not accept a civil divorce they have to go through an annulment. If they are granted annulment, it is recognized, but not the same. Several unions, for the purpose of taxes etc. , for the government. That is what needs to be redefined. As christians come out of the argument over civil unions. Guest that is a wise insight. Im member thinking about this, the issue came up 15 years ago it is both a legal license you get from the state, and it is a religious ceremony. Cannot think of anything like that. It is two different words. If you went and got the license for a civil union, and then you got married they would be separated in peoples minds. Civil license, survive in the church. As the caller said, two different words for that rather than one not much legal struggle over this as there has been. Host richard from massachusetts. Caller i was wondering if mr. Savage has any idea on where chief Justice Roberts stood. I know he has a Family Member who is gay and ive heard that before. Guest i do not know the answer to that interesting question. The most interesting vote may be cheese chief justice john roberts. A lot of people thought he might be receptive to that because of the states rights argument. He is very critical of the attorneys arguing in favor of gay marriage. We will learn little more today based on the kinds of questions and comments. Lawyers will say he could for example vote in favor of the recognition question, but not in the right to marriage. The truth is, i do not know and all of us will be interested to see where he comes out on this. Host virginia, go ahead. Caller i think everyone has kind of touched on some really good points on both sides. I called on the support line not to say just to say that my view is that maybe wrong sites were chosen recently. The hobby lobby and then the situation out in indiana with the pizza shop. Probably in response to recent years of state legislatures trying to enact measures that were restrictive in the minds of many women. I do think the church has the right as its own entity to establish its own rules for the continuity of that religious system, but at the same time, i do not think we are a theocratic society. If we were, it could easily be understood and pushed down, if you will, from federal lockdown to the states local. These are the kinds of roles society will have to live by. Host lets squeeze in one more call before we let our guest go p are from texas on the phone line. Caller i was just wondering if a bisexual father and his four biological homosexual sons are in a committed relationship with each other and love each other and want to marry each other i was wondering if they would think they have a fundamental constitutional right to marry each other and if not, why not, and if not, on what this is what they deny each other the right to marry each other . Guest i do not know the answer that question. Most Family Members cannot marry in any state and that has been understood role. I think that may be the answer right there. It is deathly not this case and i surely cannot speak for them on what they think of that one. Host a picture of the states that currently ban samesex marriage across the United States. If the Supreme Court rules for samesex marriage, what happens immediately in those states . Guest suppose they decide there is a constitutional right to marry, all of those states, laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman would then be unconstitutional it i do not know whether 24 hours later or two hours later or a week later at some point those states would have to agree to begin issuing marriage licenses just to qualify samesex couples. Host the second question becomes, in recognition of others . Guest once they say to the state of texas marriage is a constitutional right, it would allow texas to get married and new yorkers who moved to texas, they would have to honor those marriages. Host davids average david savage covers the Supreme Court and he is with the Los Angeles Times and the chicago tribune. Thank you for your time p are we will continue on with our coverage. We have been showing pictures from our side the court all morning for activities taking place later this morning. Justices will hear these cases two separate cases being heard. About 2. 5 hours of debate being scheduled. Audio from that debate released this afternoon. Just after 2 00, you can see it later on in our program. We can see the pictures of justices responding and asking questions. You can see that on cspan 34 00 in the afternoon. You can did on cspan2 at 8 00 in the afternoon. As we go forward, again, pictures from the Supreme Court, that is the line, by the way. People waiting in to get into watch the proceedings for today. Some of them reported waiting even earlier than last week waiting in line for the chance to observe what is going on today and be part of that as well. If you want to a in on the proceedings to weigh in on the proceedings, we have set up lines for you to call host if you want to weigh in on social media as well, you can do so on our social media pages. Our twitter page, and if you want to send us an email, that is how you can do that. The numbers will be on the screen. Supreme Court Arguments on samesex marriage today, that is some of the pictures you can see. We can take calls on that momentarily. States across the United States ban samesex marriage. North dakota, south dakota, nebraska, missouri, arkansas texas, alabama and others, ohio and kentucky and tennessee, and georgia as well. Some states that currently ban samesex marriage and four of those states specifically today. Those of you who support samesex marriage, host janet is from maine, a supporter of samesex marriage. Good morning, janet. Go ahead. Caller good morning. This is something i wondered. It is not a rhetorical question and i would really like an answer to this. When people say it is a state issue, it always makes me wonder if the states decided these things do we think blacks would be voting in mississippi . I love i would love an answer to that. They are both civil. They are both civil rights issues. Host one dealing with race and one doing with samesex marriage. Caller basic civil rights p are when it is a civil right it is the states who make those decisions. It will deal with biases and prejudice of each individual state. If mississippi had been able to make a decision on whether blacks would get a civil right i do not think it would happen. Host josh from massachusetts oppose line. Caller mr. Brown had the point of freedom. While an individual consenting adults have the right to enter into contracts to college call themselves whatever they like, they do not have the right to force others to regard them as anything in particular if others choose not to appear we in the public have the right to either not issue or to set whatever reasonable standards we thank or change the definition of marriage. Natural marriage is a fairly good one. We as the public have the right to choose that p are we have that freedom. It seems it is the home of fascists host that is josh from massachusetts. A lot of activity in front of the Supreme Court today. Cspan cameras are there. John talked to some of the people in line. We are 20 yards from the Supreme Court. The line extending all the way down the block. The capital on our left, Supreme Court on our right. With us is erin and gwen. We are from knoxville, tennessee and we are here to support the tennessee couples. All the couples fighting for this Marriage Equality. Its a Huge Movement and we want to be here to experience everything. Host how long have you been married . Just shy of two years. We got married in new york city because we cant get married its important that we are here today. Its a chance we are excited to be here. Tell us about the process of being married and traveling across states to come here to washington, d. C. Its tougher as a samesex couple. Heterosexual couples travels across the state line, they have no issue. We had to set up a durable power of attorney so we can make medical decisions for each other and we carry those documents with us so if we are in a state that does not recognize our marriage, we have the proof to show that we have a plan. What are you expecting from the decision today . Are you optimistic . Highly optimistic. They need to present their case effectively to get a ruling. We are hoping for a 54, maybe 63 ruling. Does that fix everything . Definitely not. Will Marriage Equality be allowed . Yes. But what about work place protection and house protection . If a couple intimacy was to get married on a saturday and go in on monday and take a photo of their spouse, they could get fired. There is trans rights as well. Its a great step, but we need to move forward and continue focusing on the fight. Where were you for the decision that came down for the defense of marriage ruling . We were in Tennessee Knoxville waiting for the results. It was an exciting moment. But then it was disheartening because we realized this was a great step federally, but in tennessee, we were not recognized. We considered moving to new england, states that would recognize our marriage. We decided we love knoxville we love tennessee, we love where we live and we want to fight to make it a better place for everyone. We will stick to our guns and fight for everyone. We appreciate your time and think you for joining us this morning thank you for joining us this money. Host one of the plaintiffs in this case talked about sophie two of the plaintiffs in the case that will be heard before this up in court. Michael from richmond, virginia on our lg bt line. You are on. Caller i wanted to touch on the words respect and harm. My family says they love me but will let me bring my partner to family dinners. If you believe you should have access to a Similar Institution and you want to deny your fellow americans that access, you are causing harm. If you refer to the mischievous or perverts, you are not respecting this people. Host brandon up next in california. Go ahead. Caller thank you for taking my call. Im the child of a loving samesex couple. One of the things that gets lost is not just the rights, but the childrens writes. Rights. Its repugnant for people for family values whats lost in this is the fact that the parents im in my mid20s but i was raised by a samesex couple. That is a point i want to bring appeared im curious how the court and Justice Kennedy im curious to whether or not committee has made any comments in the past as it relates to the children of samesex couples. Host colorado. You are next. Caller god is love and if you have hate in your heart, you are not making it forgot. Everyone should have the right to marry who they want. If a business wants to refuse service to them, i dont believe they have any constitutional right to a business license. Caller rick from pensacola florida. Good morning. Good morning. Caller good morning. A fallacy seems to occur. The fact that the courts are giving class status to behavior you look at the push that homosexuals are making for marriage, they always equate it to the civil rights struggle. The difference is, discrimination against blacks was based on one thing and one thing only, the color of their skin. Discrimination against homosexuals is based on behavior. If we open this up and make it mandatory, youre on a slippery slope. What if a male who is 35 wants to marry two or 312yearolds two or three 12yearolds . It opens the door to where we dont want to go as a society. As far as civil unions and discrimination against homosexuals, im against that. But i think marriage is a statewide religious situation and it should be maintained as such. Host kevin from new york. Hello. Caller i just want to make a similar comment. To me, this is about as simple as an issue gets. Marriage is no longer a religious institution. It is a by the very constitution, separation of church and state people possible moral it is their civil right to get married because this is not a religious institution anymore. If you want to make it an institution that is religious and governmental, you have to stop allowing judges to marry people. Stop allowing the government to offer marriage licenses. As far as businesses discriminating, theres two ways we can go with this. Either everyone has the right to discriminate for any reason they want and we all agree on or everyone has to serve everyone. That is my personal opinion. Host proceedings at 10 00 today. 2. 5 hours scheduled by the justices to hear these cases of varying plaintiffs across the United States. Lets head back out to the Supreme Court. We are joined live right dennis by dennis. Your congregation is warrenton virginia. A lutheran pastor. How does the Lutheran Church come down on the issue of same sex marriage . It is a split in the Lutheran Church between a number of dominations that favor traditional marriage and the larger elca which favors gay marriage im in the north american Lutheran Church and that one stands firm with the traditional marriage. Im here today because i believe that this case has to do with the morality of this country. The morality of this country is based on the gospel of jesus christ. That gospel teaches us to have the bible as our guide for morality. Otherwise, we make up whatever we want. The bible says do whatever we do is right. Its important that we stand up and say we dont have anything against gay people we are not like these guys appear screaming and yelling and saying all these terrible things in the name of jesus christ, but we are saying you have to have some basis. Im standing up for the bible and morality. You said youve been here since 6 30. Is this a different this is off the hook. Ive never seen anything quite like it at the Supreme Court. This is a big day for a lot of people. What are your expectations . The keys will go with gay marriage being allowed in every state. What happens from there is like the ruby way decision. Roe v wade decision. When do we go back to the streets and go back to arguing and fighting and having differences over these issues. It will be like the abortion issue. This wont end it. It will be the beginning. We as Christians Jesus will not come up to us and say i want you to do this for me. Our guide is his holy word and we have to receive that holy word on any issue. We are nourished and guided by it. Host three lines for you to call today if you want to get your thoughts out there. 2027488000 four hour support line. 2027488001 if you oppose gay marriage. 2027488000 for our support line. Robert, good morning. Go ahead. Caller i would like to know if the Supreme Court rules in my favor, will it affect the military as far as the lg bt people in the military . Host rebecca from independence missouri on our opposed line. Caller hatred is always wrong. The only equal rights is life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Endowed by god, our creator. Marriage is not created equal. A heterosexual marriage can produce life. Homosexual marriage has the strong possibility of causing death if sodomy is engaged in. Homosexuality accepts sodomy. Host more pictures 10 00 is when the justices will hear two sets of lawyers, split up into two questions. One taking a look at it states that another question does the state have to recognize the 14th amendment 2027488000 for those of you who support gay marriage. 2027488001 if you oppose it. For lg bt viewers, 2027488002. Independence, missouri. Rebecca, go ahead. Lets hear from durango, colorado on our support line. Caller i support samesex marriage. Why should i be more special from my friends who are in loving relationships . To me, its a matter of fairness and equality that should be extended across the United States. Host what do you think the Supreme Court will decide . Withwill they support your point of view . Caller i think they will recognize this is an equal right that should be great to do every citizen of the United States. Its a fairness argument. Host how does your state deal with this topic . Caller colorado has accepted and changed their laws just recently to allow samesex marriages. Im really proud of colorado. Host this is tony from dunlap, illinois. Go ahead. Caller i was his calling in to point out morality right now is being shaped in the Supreme Court rather than where people are calling and saying its in the bible slavery is found in the bible, subjugation of women is found in the bible. All these issues have been vetted in the Supreme Court. This is just a demonstration of we get to decide what morality is, not somebodys idea of who god is. Host why do you think we are at this point of hearing cases in the court today . Caller it demonstrates that we get to decide as people come as human beings, what are morality is going to be. The majority of americans already have spoken their minds about it. The Supreme Court is going to do the same. Host on our opposed line, this is gloria. Caller im calling in because i want to know, if this is going to be an ok thing about gay marriages, was going to happen to our children . Children catch onto things real fast. Some have to keep having children. I was just wondering about that part. One more thing what happens to a person i know people who are gay one day and the next day they are straight. So, i dont know. Thats all i have to say. Host the editors of the wall street journal take a look at todays decision. The plaintiffs are asking the courts to declare that equal protection under the law means states rock town, texas. This is a really a orelia. Caller my comment is this i believe every person in the United States has the right to pursue and love whoever they want. People should mind their own business. Most of the people of any race they think they are more moral than people for samesex marriage. Host on our lg bt line, mike from pennsylvania. Good morning. Go ahead. Caller i have two questions. If a man is married to another man or a woman marries another woman and that woman is getting benefits from her husband does the support still go to the children or is it automatically discontinued . The only reason these people are getting married is because they are going to get the benefits of it. The hospitalization. Host the wall street journal takes a look at the justices role in all of this. John roberts and the whole process, adding whether the court recognizes the national right come it could be determined by chief Justice Robertss vote. The split the difference approach could draw that chief justice the samesex marriage cases to be heard at the Supreme Court today. If you want to listen to them, you can do so after 2 00 when the Supreme Court will release the audio portion of the debates. You can find that information and listen to it on our website. You can see televised the audio portion and pictures of the various lawyers speaking and the justices responding. You can find more of that on our website at www. Cspan. Org. This is a shot just outside of the Supreme Court. A shot of all the people who have gathered. People waiting in line to get in we will show you these as we go throughout the morning. Albert from florida on our opposed line. Caller good morning. Its an abomination that men marry men and women marry women. Its not right. God condones this. The states shouldnt be wasting our time addressing this issue. Its an abomination to god. I dont understand these people. God made man and woman, not man and man. Its a waste of taxpayer money. I dont understand it. Host mark in North Hollywood california. Caller good morning. Would i would just tell the gentleman, he can tell me about what he thinks a book says but i can tell him that god made me the way that he made me and im proud that he made me that way. Im tired of straight people telling me about my morality. I start my day every day praying to god, being grateful for all the blessings he has given me. I dont need to hear a straight person tell me about how a book written years ago, how gays are wrong. From a biblicals perspective what about adulterers . Theyre just discriminating against gay people. Host one of the plaintiffs in the case highlighted. Jane from michigan. They will be in washington to have their case before the Supreme Court. We will hear from sally in michigan who opposes the samesex marriage. Good morning. Caller good morning. Im a recovering homophobic. I would like to say that i agree with the caller who suggested a different name, such as a union. That makes all the difference to me. If you believe what the bible says, if you believe the bible it is true that god is a bit more offended by homosexuality than other sexual sins, but doesnt condemn you. I believe in the separation of church and state. They do deserve the right to inherit property after death. As far as child custody matters go. That makes a lot of sense to me that they be given these rights, but not under the name marriage because marriage is always been a religious sacrament. The name marriage was adopted from religion. I hate to use the term separate but equal but wouldnt it i dont see a problem with just calling it a union. Give it the same benefits, but not spiritual. I dont want to deprive them of their rights. Host what started the process of your change of thinking . Caller i know that i have never hated gay people or anything. Its just discomfort, being uncomfortable with it. I realized they dont have time for me to be ready for it. If they had to wait for us to be ready, they will be waiting for a long time. Thats like me waiting for the rest of the country to get over the drug war. There is no time. They call it a legal union. Host sally talking about todays activity at the Supreme Court. A lot of people out there, including our cspan cameras. Janet joins us from canada, british columbia. What brought you from canada here to the Supreme Court . We were just visiting our friends. We wanted to visit the Supreme Court on our visit here because the last time we were here, it was closed. We looked into whether it was possible to get in and then we heard this was going to be this really interesting case. We decided, we would really like to go and if get if we could possibly get in, that would be an added bonus. Do you come down on one side or the other . Absolutely. Im hoping for the plaintiffs that the court will decide that regardless of your Sexual Orientation, that you are entitled to marriage. What brought you to that opinion . It is such a fundamental thing to be able to commit to one another. And to be prohibited you are born with a particular Sexual Orientation. To be prohibited from being married to the person that you are in love with seems so fundamentally wrong to me. Contrary to the basic tenants of the social contract we have to deprive people of that seems wrong. The scene here this morning gay marriage has been legal in canada for little over 10 years now. Can you talk about how you have seen this debate play out in your times visiting the United States and how the debate played out in canada . I can tell you more about come in canada under the province you could only get a marriage license if you were a man and woman. You would to the Supreme Court 10 years ago and that was found to be contrary to our charter rights and freedoms. You cannot do that. So, anybody can apply for a marriage license. How contentious was the debate leading up to that decision . Is it comparable to what youve seen here . Yes, i think so. You would agree with that. It was very contentious. It was getting less so as years went on. 10 years later, is it still a contentious issue . Not that im aware of. I think the people that could really tell you are samesex couples. It has made a difference. Is there a way to have them fill socially accepted just your thoughts on the scene out here. Its wonderful that people take the time out of their day to let it be known what they think and that theyd like to go in and see the highest court in their country reach a decision. Theyre hoping in a particular way. It is very interesting to see people so engaged. I think it is quite wonderful. Thank you so much for your time. Host email this morning off of twitter, a viewer saying some of the ways you can communicate with us this morning , as well as taking your calls on this issue. 2027488000 for those who supports them samesex marriage. Don is on our support line from minnesota. Caller i would like to express my confusion over the fundamental issue regarding this, which is that all of the pro and cons seem to resolve around discrimination based on Sexual Orientation. There is no such thing there is nothing in the marriage contract that deals with your Sexual Orientation. That, to me, makes the issue simply revolve around gender. This becomes gender discrimination. When a couple goes in and applies for the marriage certificate, there is no box to check on intent or motivation. We dont demand that of opposite sex couples when they apply. Why should it be that we demanded of samesex couples . All of this discussion everybody calls it gay marriage. There is no such thing. If the proponents would have dropped the Sexual Orientation issue, it would have undercut a percentage of the opposition voice because if you base it on gender and say you cannot discriminate based on my gender those sorts of cases have been hurt before and have always resolved in favor of those fighting that discrimination. Both in the pro and con side the inclusion the front row seat given to Sexual Orientation seems very confusing to me because it is not part of marriage. People can say that is why i love this person, thats why i want to get married. We dont care. Legally, as far as the marriage contract is concerned, why you are getting married has nothing to do with why you are being granted a license. While raising families nobody makes you have children. There is not someone looking in our bedroom to see if your consummating her marriage. That is not part of marriage as far as the legal state impact goes. Im just confused why that never gets brought up, that Sexual Orientation or preference or whatever or intent of the people wanting to get married has nothing to do with the contract. Host katie in jackson, michigan on our line for lg bt viewers. Caller i want to start by saying thank you to everyone out there in washington right now fighting for this cause. I just wanted to say, i was hearing a lot of things on there about gays being an abomination. Ive been with the same woman since eighth grade. Weve been together for 16 years. We have a sevenyearold son. I dont ever want him to know this hate and know this pain. He is a star student and i want to know when the children its not just about marriage or just about hey weve got married, weve shown that its were in love. Its about our rights come our children. Our rights, our children. Its just very scary and a very sad situation to know that so many people are looking at it like this is disgusting. It is so much more than that. Not everyone follows the bible. Not everyone believes in the bible. You dont have to be a christian american. We are americans. We believe that everyone even the opposing come have a right to their belief. That is fine but you should not have the right to control what goes on in my taxpaying home. Host tony from maryland on our opposed line. Caller thank you for taking my call. Im a moderate. People on both sides are taking to extremes. Two extremes. One will have you frame the discussion as a battle between the government the government the other side would have you believe that somebody going and signing a license 1000 miles away will affect your life and religious express. People are confusing a Legal Practice with their religious practice. The issue comes down to the fact that we are more of a capitalist society than religious society. Its a streamlined Legal Process for Legal Protections for people. Maybe the solution is to apply those Legal Processes, but not use the word marriage. Oh those who feel that is a religious institution dont have their rights infringed upon but you can meet the needs of the people who need to have their children looked after when they die. Thats how i feel about the issue. Host the folks at gallup took a look at those in samesex relationships saying when they pulled people, 780,000 people the estimated number of those married to a samesex spouse. The number goes up to 1. 2 million unmarried. Jean in whitman, massachusetts on our support line. Caller i find it hard to understand why some christians claim to speak for all christians. Why some christians claim to know what god wants or what the mind of god is. There are many dominations that recognize and consecrate samesex marriages such as the presbyterians, the lutherans. There are many churches across this country that have embraced lg bt people in their congregations. In states where the law has changed and these people now get married, these denominations want to be consistent they want to continue to embrace these people and dont want to discriminate against them. Christians have the right to believe what they want but please dont speak for all christians when you speak out on this issue. Host you will find several groups of people outside the court today, those supporting samesex marriage, those opposing. You saw a line of people waiting to get to watch the proceedings. As we take your calls on todays 2. 5 hour process by the Justice Department and Supreme Court two separate questions being considered. Thats whats the activity for today. 2027488000 for those who support samesex marriage. 2027488001 for those who oppose it. For lg bt viewers, 2027488003. 2027488002. Michael is next on our line for lg bt viewers. Caller hello. I was calling because of the gentleman that called a little while ago mentioning about marrying their sons or animals. This is an argument that a lot of people against gay marriage seem to bring up all the time. The issue is, people that are gay are not asking to marry children or animals or people people. We are asking for a marriage between one other person we love , to consenting adults. We are not asking to marry children, no animals, nothing like that. Then, they bring up its a slippery slope. That is a false argument. If it were to get to that point that can be dealt with at that time. No one ever has asked for those things. They constantly bring it up to persuade others that its disgusting in some manner. They are constantly bringing that up because they have no other legitimate ballot arguments. Valid arguments. Guest we go back to the Supreme Court to talk with the folks hanging out in front of their today there today. There has been lots of loud chanting and protests and singing this morning with a bit of a choir we are joined by christine from michigan. Got here at 5 30 this morning. Why are you here . Im here because i have a passion im a strong believer. I understand we have a situation here where god shows us the Old Testament to nations that go against the word of god. I love my god and i love my country and it concerns me that if this goes the wrong way against the bible, the protection will be leaving this country. That scares me. Talk about how you are making your voice known here. What is your philosophy . I let my signs speak. They have to read it. From there, if they want to talk to me, comes because me. Im not here to yell at you, im not here to project my voice and try to get your attention that way. The quieter, more subtle ways of exposing my message can be best. The people behind me with the banners, thats on them. Thats like the father in the home yelling at the sun the son. I like the mother in the home, please dont do that again, i love you. The two women involved in michigan, they were the ones that you would say instigated my mission to create this sign and stand at the detroit courthouse. I stood there for 14 days and we got to know each other. I stood quietly and we eventually started talking. I met them here again this past weekend and i told them, you are the reason why i now have a mission. I never thought i would do that. It was you that gave me a purpose. I feel that was something that we appreciate your time this morning. Host john talking to folks at the Supreme Court appeared we continue on, hearing your thoughts on todays hearings on samesex marriage at the Supreme Court. We want to show you a couple pictures from baltimore. Riots taking place there yesterday after the death of freddie gray. You go to the page of the New York Times this morning showing some of what happened stemming from that. The story as it was a second time in six months that the state called out the National Guard Loretto Lynch put out a statement Loretta Lynch put out a statement saying the Civil Rights Division and fbi have been ongoing and independent criminal rights investigation into the tragic death of mr. Gray. Attorney general lynch adding that is the attorney general on the activities in baltimore. Back to your thoughts on samesex marriage. Springfield, missouri on our oppose line. Caller im calling because it seems like everybody is missing the point. I understand i sympathize with people who struggle with their natural biological assignments. I even concede i can see them as courageous for going against their biological grain. There are challenges that go with that. Challenges from within and social challenges. Neither religion nor love are going to change the facts of life. Its a simple its nature. Religion or love is not going to change the natural function of sex. In regard to acceptance, people who practice samesex practice that way, they are not accepting who they are naturally. They are rejecting that. Religion or love, nothing is going to change that natural fact. We should be guided not by religion or love with or without it, man is man and woman is woman. The function of these two things cant nobody change it. Youre not going to change it. Neither religion or love. I also agree with the civil unions. If its about being able to have the benefits of ring being a lover for a long time were raising a child, im good for a civil union. We should be guided by nature. Host annette from missouri. John in riverhead, new york. Good morning. Caller good morning. I just want you to know that i think this is an aspirational day for people who are gay, lesbian or transgender especially for our youth. Theres a lot of misinformation that people think marriage is a sacrament. It is not a sacrament, universally. It may be for catholics. There are plenty of people married at city halls. I want to thank cspan. It has come to a head. I look forward to a very positive conclusion. Host lets head back out to the Supreme Court. Sharon in sykesville, maryland. Good morning. Caller good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I would only like to say this marriage is a civil contract. You dont dissolve a marriage in the church, you dissolve it in the court. Religion has overstepped it bounce test its bounds overstepped its bounds. Thank you so much. Host on our support line, and from jackson, tennessee. Caller there is always going to be good people and bad people. For good people to do evil, that takes religion. Mixing politics and religion is like mixing ice cream and maneuver. Manuer. We put our hand on the bible. We dont put our hand on the constitution to uphold the bible. Host you may be interested in hearing the arguments that will take place today. 2. 5 hours worth of arguments. Go to our website at www. Cspan. Org just after 2 00 you can hear the audio version of this arguments. Those arguments. You can see them on cspan3 at four clock and on cspan2 at 8 00. Cspan3 at four clock. At 4 00. Mike is up next in virginia. Hello. Caller i oppose this. I have listened for a while and ive heard people for this. My god has not changed. He was what he was and he is what he is and he always will be. You can go to church and listen to a sermon they need to go to a church about the word. I heard a man for this saying we are not asking to marry a dog or family or whatever. This leads to this. Obama was against this, now he is for this. How is it you go to church and hear the words and know this is wrong and still are for it . Its all for a vote. Marijuana, for a vote. It is not right. I oppose this, i dont hate the people, but i will pray for them. Host usa today reports that the justices are being asked to decide for 13 states. 13 states have bans on samesex marriage. They will focus on four. Louisiana is up next. This is scott. Go ahead. Caller thank you for taking my call. I live in a smaller town in louisiana. We need to look at this as what is going to happen as far as arguments made before the Supreme Court. Religious arguments do not carry a lot of weight when you get to the Supreme Court. These are matters of the law. According to how i read the law i dont see how you could discriminate against a small group of people who are going to go to a civil marriage some will go to a religious ceremony. There are a number of different religions that except samesex marriage. Accept samesex marriage. We need to look at this as what are the laws that will be applied and how will those be applied . How are the states going to take those decisions and either push back against the samesex couples or invite them in to be part of their texting citizenry tax paying citizenry . Thats what the Supreme Court will have to look at. Host we go back out to the Supreme Court. Back in line, a line that wraps around used capital street. East capitol street, almost two blocks long. We are joined by chris perry and her wife sandy. Remind viewers of your special connection. We were here two years ago with the proposition eight case. We were successful in removing the van for marriage in california. Ban for marriage in california. What does it mean for the two of you . It simply means that our engagement and the struggle is not over. Until every american has the right to get married, we dont have a fair and equal country. While we are hopeful for a good outcome in this case, our eye is on the price. Theres some 1100 benefits that are federally recognized. Are there one or two in particular that you would be interested in . We are a middle aged couple. We want to be sure that our assets are protected for our children. We now have the right to share in our state together and share the same things with their children. We think about our future and our health in visiting each other. We can visit each other at a hospital with zero controversy. There are hundreds of other things we think about protecting ourselves. As the National Anthem is being sung behind us, your thoughts on the scene this morning. This is a heavy moment for us. We feel honored to be represented. Very proud of all the plaintiffs marching in there today to fight for their rights. A very patriotic bone. Patriotic moment. Host our line in california for those who support samesex marriage. Caller thank you for taking my call. From reading the bible, we were all given free will from god. Man has nothing to do with we have free will. That is a light that was given to each and every human being. Men have nothing to do with what a person does as long as its not illegal. If they are doing wrong, god will take care of them. That is not our responsibility to tell another person they cannot marry because we dont feel they should. I dont think you should marry the same person a person of the same sex, but thats me and i have no right to go into the bedroom of someone else and tell them what they should do. We are fighting in other countries, telling the muslims what they should do and we are saying they have no right we are doing the same thing here. People have free will. Thats a right that god has given each and every one of us. Host john from phoenix, arizona is up next for the lg bt viewers. Caller good morning. First of all, i was blown away when arizona allowed samesex marriage. It was a random impossibility that came on board. I would like to comment on the folks opposed to samesex marriage. They fall into two camps. Either pure religious or they hate gays. They get very, very angry when you point this out. Those are the basic two reasons. Host hoffman, North Carolina. Nick is up next on the opposed line. Nick from North Carolina . Lets go to market in ohio. Go ahead. Mark in ohio. Caller i just wanted to say, as a baptist minister, the bible does we do not have a right we dont have a right to force gospel on them. They have their free will and they are allowed to make decisions as they wish. Host inquirer on site at the Supreme Court singing for the last few minutes. A variety of groups. A choir on site. This is darrell in long beach, california. The morning. Good morning. Caller my brother was a homosexual and i do recall back in the 1950s and 1960s, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Somehow, the psychological doctors said you are no longer mentally ill. Now, you have a situation where we come to this religious aspect over and over. I dont hear anybody quoting scripture because people have opinions but never study it. It says very clearly, there is a way that seems right look at where we are now. We have a nation that is very happy when we can go into the military and take on the combat aive roll, now we have this big problems. We speaking were no one knows what theyre supposed to be. Big problem spiritual hely where no one knows what theyre supposed to be. Host jim on twitter says this we play the audio for you showing you pictures of those lawyers before the court. Pictures of the justices as they give their arguments. You can see all of that today at 2 00 on www. Cspan. Org. Later this evening, televised versions of that audio available for you. More information can be found on the website. You will hear from the department of lament security Secretary Department of Homeland Security secretary. Ralph from flori
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.