Ed would really love to encourage those businesses to stay in l. A. And also in San Bernadino in that area would benefit from new manufacturing jobs. So each of these six states the way theyve been drawn really does have its own personality. And i think by getting closer to those states were all going to be better off. With that, im sure you have some questions and love to open it up. Thank you very much. [applause] friends, feel free to sit down. We can relax. I rather face the music. All right. So thank you to tim draper, author of the six californias initiative. You will be asking me questions. Happy to sit down. We do have the map that six californias has proposed. There are are the six states. And so let me just start with a question. I know we have many others. And i have some rooting questions. So are you serious or being provocative or do you really want this to happen . No, this is an opportunity. Im looking at it as a very important opportunity. We have been weve been living
Most striking thing to me when i talk, sit in rooms in lebanon or turkey or jordan and talk to refugees, sit in Community Centers and meet, you know, ive got in my mind 35 women who are in one of our health centers, they will tell you unbelievable stories of horror and loss. And the only time they will smile is when you ask them do you ever think youll go back . And extraordinarily strikingly, their face changes s and they say, yes. And thats someone who 30 seconds before was talking about her house being bombed and her husband being lost and her son being lost. But that, none of them expect to go back anytime soon. I think thats the other side of the coin. And i dont its a very technologicallyenabled and connected population. Theyre reading the ruins in the same way that we are. They see the news reports. They know that president assad is not going to be toppled tomorrow. They can see the war lengthening. They go backwards and forwards, by the way, a point that hasnt come up very much
It was a fundamental underlying issue about what marriage is. The question becomes at the Supreme Court exclusively defines marriage to reflect this conjugal, i think that was the term used, the conjugal vision of marriage. The Supreme Court has not done that. Under windsor, it wouldnt be appropriate for the Supreme Court to resolve this fundamental clash of different visions of marriage. That was the whole point is that that is not a proper separate function, that is a proper state function. Virtually complete authority over the definition of marriage. Returning to windsor, this is what causes me concern. There is no question i think Justice Scalia really highlights it the court was speaking in windsor about marriage that it very clearly indicated and gave directions that it was going to be talking about federal. In fact, when it came time to it language of windsor, essentially, not even the essentially but directly disallowed a decision that would be predicated on federalism and inst