Utah set to fight a federal ruling allowing same sex marriage in that state. Consider this, will it challenge land in the u. S. Supreme court potentially back firing on Marriage Equality opponents. Also, two judges with two as the courts fight it out, what does it mean for the monitoring of your telephone calls. Also a major casino doubles down anteing up employees salaries. And smaly americans, recruited by an american offshoot. Widespread group of american immigrants. Hello everyone, im adam mace, is iting in for antonio mora. Both of these issues could end up in Supreme Court in 2014, were talking about same sex marriage and the nsa telephone program. Just the past week, in utah, scenes like this one became pretty common. By the power invested in me i now pronounce you married in the state you live in with your family. You may kiss. Now, utahs attorney general says hell appeal that ruling by District Court judge robert shelby. He says the states ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional. Now meanwhile one of the plaintiffs says the law is actually on their side. I think that the courts have made it clear that there is no place for discrimination in utah. Now, while lower courts have been making pretty clear rulings on same sex marriage there have been some very conflicting messages when it comes to nsa and telephone surveillance. On friday, u. S. District judge William Pauley ruled in favor of the Government Program actually and against the american civil plibt little bit union basically saying it was a vital tool on the war against terror. U. S. District judge richard leon ruled against that program and called it almost uncertainly unconstitutional and almost or orwellian. How this could impact the rest of the country. Clifd roski is a professor at the university of utah, largest lgbt civil rights organization, joining us from salt lake. Thanks so much for joining us here. You believe that whats happening in utah could set a precedent, could help decide the same sex marriage all across the country dont you . Absolutely. This is a case where as utah goes so goes nation. This is the First Federal court ruling since last summer when the Supreme Court struck down the defense of marriage act. This is the first example of how courts are going to apply that decision to the states. This is happening rapid though isnt it . Were talking about the number of states that have allowed same sex maicialg, doubled in the year. Did you anticipate that corlts would rule so quickly . Not how quickly the court rules but how quickly the decision was put into effect. Normally the court would ask for a stay which is a temporary pause as the appeal proceeds but in this case they fail to do that so same sex couples married immediately on friday afternoon. What are you hearing on the ground . Honestly, there were hundreds if not thousands of same sex couples in this state that had been denied the right to marry for a very long time and they were anxious to get down to the county Clerks Office when it was still legal. Nobody knew how long it would last. Earlier this year the Supreme Court slapped down the defense of marriage act, but they essentially kicked that issue back to the state. There was a very technical ruling there. What do you think they are going to want to hear utahs case again and force them to be more specific . There is reluctance among justices. I think would i disagree with the way the Supreme Court handled that decision. They did speak about as a general matter states have the authority to regulate marriage. But every time they said that they insisted whatever states do they must comply with the federal constitution. And in particularly they struck down the defense of marriage act because they said it injuries and stigmatizes same sex couples and stigmatizes their children. That cuts pretty deeply. Bringing up the family bringing up how this impacts children, has that been a Tipping Point in this conversation . Has that helped them Gain Momentum where they were unsuccessful in previous years . Absolutely. For decades the oppositions main argument is that homosexuality poses a threat to children and children should be protected from gay and lesbian people and the fact that these arguments were presented to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court flatly rejected them, for them to say that same sex marriage harms and humiliate tens of thousands of children who are raised by same sex marriage, that is the strongest indicator of where the court stands. I want to talk specifically about whats happening there in utah. I understand you got ordained so you could perform same sex marriages. What was the process of doing that especially this quickly and rapidly . When i went down to the court on friday afternoon, there were many same sex couples with licenses but not enough are officials. I went through that process on a pretty expedited basis so i could be there on monday morning. The judge had announced that he would be ruling sometime on monday but we didnt know when. And the county clerk opened for business at 8 00 a. M. , so i was there. You were there, youre there waiting for this judges ruling and are you rushing to perform these marriages . And i wasnt alone. There were dozens of ministers and hundreds of couples. In one case i actually, a couple came out and i just got a text message that the judge was back in court ready to rule and speaking from the bench and you know the couple they actually said they were jewish and they were looking for arabi, i said im not a rabbi but i can marry you and i think we ought to do this now. We rushed through ceremony as quickly as possible because we didnt know how the judge was going orule. Had the judge ruled the other way the next person in line would not have been able to get married. But there were other people you did after that . Yes. Once the stay was denied there was at least a few more hours before the state appealed to a higher court. When i exaim back one of my dear friends and a former student of mine were getting married so that was a more special personal ceremony for me. I think some people are quite shocked to see that this is happening in utah. I mean its one of the reddest states that has allowed same sex marriage, perhaps the only red state, depending on what polls you read, highly mormon state, at Brigham Young university nearly 70 of mormons oppose any legal relationship for same sex couples. Year. What is driving the change there on the ground in utah . Well i think what you referred to earlier, the way that people see the issue of children and the effect of homosexuality on children is a really big Tipping Point in this debate. And i do think i. T. Sends a very it sends a very are important signal, even after the Supreme Courts ruling federal courts now recognize that same sex couples have the right to marry across the United States of america. Clifford what states do you think are going to be next . Well, the thing about this case its proceeding so quickly this case is probably going to decide the issue for all 50 states. So we have 17 or 18 states right now where same sex marriage is legal. And then you know if this case is upheld on appeal the 32 states in one swoop are, you know, same sex marriage is legal across the country. That would be quite a widesweeping change and all eyes will be on utah to see how this plays out. Clifford rossi, law professor at the university of utah, also chairman of the board of equality utah, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you. Lets turn to the next hot button issue, the conflict ing decisions on nsa phone surveillance. Whos calling whom, billions of calls a day, richard leon decided december 17th, just a couple of weeks ago, that the program probably violates Fourth Amendment restrictions against unlawful search and seizures. But then William Pauley ruled otherwise on friday. The right from searches and seizures is fundamental but not absolute. Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal information to transnational corporations that exploit that for profit, few are thinking about it twice. Which judge is right and is this issue also on the fast track to head to the u. S. Supreme court . For more im joined on our new york set here by michael price, counsel for the brennan centers policy for rights. We are giving this to transnational corporations to cant the government have it too . Well i think this opinion is one in a debate that is going to the Supreme Court. But already we see that the decision is a bit of an outlier. If you consider the trend that weve been seeing towards nsa reform out of all three branches of government, it does seem to buck that trend a little bit. And as you mentioned theres the decision from judge leon just earlier this month finding that the program was likely unconstitutional, theres also legislation moving through contract that would limit the nsas ability to collect data in bulk like this and a group of experts appointed by the president did an investigation of this program and determined, also just this month, that it hadnt actually made us any safer and should be stopped. So you think this will go to the u. S. Supreme court, this very issue and you think it will happen in 2014 . It is dull to say when it will actually happen but i have no doubt it will end up there. There is certainly a momentum there. You heard in this ruling that this judge wrote that were giving this information to corporations does that raise concerns among people groups like yours that are in favor of patrolling back some of these nsa programs, that quote from a u. S. Court, corporations are people, now theyre tying this into how we interact with corporations as well. I think that theres a big difference between corporations having your information and the government having your information. The government can put you in jail. Unlike google or at t. And i think that the court, especially, is as far back as 2012 with the gps tracking case really recognized, and started to question, this idea that just because you give information to a company, it means that the government can have access to it. And i think theres some real skepticism there. The ruling by judge pauley was in response to the aclu, here is what he had to write, misinterprets the relevant statute, misapplies a narrow and outdated precedent to weed away core constitutional protections. How do you see it . Do you see it exactly like that . I would think its like that. I would add it shouldnt have gotten to this point. In 2006 when the nsa was just starting up this program, this should have been a question that was resolved by an article 3 court through the regular process. Instead, its become a fait accompli. Were looking at judges are looking at everything after the fact and after everything has been politicized and in this case i think the judge got it wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. There is some support for the nsa surveillance programs among people in this country, obviously polling is very conflicting on that. Judge pauley wrote if the program had been in place before the 9 11 attacks, might have found pan al qaeda safe house from inside san diego. Does very a point . Does this kind of justify the program saying look, if we had this program in place before 9 11 that might not have happened . I i think that is one of the major facts that the judge gets wrong in this case. The 9 11 commission did an investigation and determined that there were at least four instances in 2001 when the intelligence agencies could have identified those hijackers or plotters in the u. S. , and failed to do so. It wasnt a problem with collection. It was a problem with analysis. And the idea that were any safer by collecting all this metadata, you know, courts and congress and the president s own review group have weighed in and said you know what, its not working. But isnt a problem with that argument someone would say if you had four missed opportunities, if you had five, you do have better odds. In this case, they are adding hay to the haystack and not actually identifying real threats. This is a big topic, lets go to our social media producer hermella aregawi. How would the Supreme Court rule if they took up the nsa case . Thats a great question. Again i would go back to the 2012 decision that the court had found that warrantless gps tracking was unconstitutional. There you had five justices including justice sotomayor, who called into question this third party doctrine, the doctrine that the nsa is relying on, you give the information to google or at t, it might have been like giving it to the government. The Court Expressed some hesitancy there, and that is likely to be the case when it comes before them. The interesting partly of this whole nsa program was it was put in place by the bush administration, upheld if not enhanced by the obama administration. It seems to go across the parties, parties that are in power do you see the government is doing something to keep the base happy but keep the program somewhat in place . I think theres a move even among the legislators that enacted the statutes here to reign in what the rein in what the nsa is doing. You have leahy and sensenbrenner, who were the authors of the patriot act. This is michael price, counsel for the brennan centers National Security program. Thanks so much for appearing on consider this. Why their choice to raise salaries for workers could have a big impact. Across the country. Plus hermella, whats trending out there . Adam coming up well take a look at challenges to press freedom in 2013 and what Media Companies are doing about it. What do you think . Go to facebook, google plus and twitter. Start with one issue ad guests on all sides of the debate. And a host willing to ask the tough questions and youll get. The inside story ray suarez hosts inside story weekdays at 5pm et 2pm pt only on Al Jazeera America. In old industry, may be breaking new ground in the battle for a living wage. Could casinos be the answer to slow job creation and stagnant wages . Ordered by an arbitrator to double the wages of more than a thousand of its lowest paid workers. It could have a Ripple Effect in industry. New york is poised to open seven new casinos in the near future. Many workers you say rallying say it is not enough. Minimum wage is less than a living wage. Stephanie luce is an associate professor of labor studies at the City University of new york and a living wage expert. She actually testified at the arbitration hearing on behalf of the workers hypothesis. She joins us from raleigh north carolina. Is it fair to say they werent actually kicking and screaming, could they have fought this further . It went to arbitration because the casino and the union couldnt agree on a common wage. But the casino didnt really resist that it had the ability to pay, which is an interesting feature here. It said it could afford the higher wage, it is just resisting the fact that it should pay a higher wage. Many people always argue the company the business they can afford this. Right. Thats whats interesting here is its a good example of an employer that actually does have higher profits, it has the money to pay the higher wage. A lot of times, employers say they should be able to hire workers at low wages, shouldnt necessarily have to pay higher. This was forced on the casino by the arbitrate. Is this a unique situation, will we see this repeated . Yes, well it is a very interesting case because i think it is a more profitable industry than perhaps others but it does suggest that this is a model that cities and states really need to look at. They are looking at casinos as a way to increase jobs and development. Whether they look at building stadiums, Convention Centers or shopping malls i think what this case shows is that the state really has an interest in providing a living wage job, not just creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs but to create jobs that really help workers to stay in their families you point out that casinos are obviously making money. They have a very large profit margin. All these protests that have been happening across the country in growing numbers this year can Major Companies mcdonalds, walmart, these are companies that make a lot of money. Right. Could they afford to pay all their workers minimum wage . Is there any research on that . Companies like walmart could easily raise wages, even doubling their wages having very little impact on Consumer Prices and on employment. So the casino case really impacts that its possible for a lot of these employers to raise wages. They just havent been forced to up to this point. Whats the real effect . You obviously spoke to people at the casino in new york. How is this changing their lives . Its an extraordinary change. I have worked on living wage issues, for many years and havent ever seen this level of change. We see workers being able to pay off some of their debt, cover some of their health experiences, many workers have two or even three jobs, theyll be able to cut back. Quite a few of these workers are relying on federal subsidies, relying on food stamps, even some workers are homeless. Whats exciting here is the Immediate Impact on almost 1400 workers and their families that will see you know immediately, just being able to make their basic cost of lferg. What about the impact of taxpayers, you bring up social cost, people getting off food stamps or not needing these subsidies for their health care. This is what, saving taxpayers money, is that what the Research Shows . Yes, definitely. Not just low wages, but the fast Food Industry alone that fast food workers use about 9 about the a year in subsidies. We know that low wage work is not just harmful for the workers and their families but for taxpayers overall. Stephanie, a handful of states will be raising their minimum wage, sometimes insignificant, difference of pennys or dimes. Do you see the country moving