Passage. We have a rare moment for the Senate ForeignRelation Committee and the senate as a whole to demonstrate this. And coming together to demonstrates our ability to give constructive input on one of the most Important NationalSecurity Issues of the day and strain our divisive influences in this body and demonstrate our ability to overcome them and show the relevance and Work Together to come together in the best interest of our nation. With that, madam president , i yield the floor. Next, the Supreme CourtCourt Hears Oral Argument in several samesex marriage cases. Then we open it up to you and later a debate on samesex marriage on todays washington journal. Throughout the day we have been seeing comments from a number viewers. This one from maxwell who says it has been legal in the uk for a while and their society is still entact and no one elses marriages have been ruined. Get the government out of marriage all together. Facebook. Com cspan. And on twitter jennifer who covered the case for huffingtonpost wrote now i can understand why people are pushing for streaming of the oral arguments. The first cases involved michigan and kentucky cases. The first question was about whether the 14th amendment required states to license samesex marriage and the second part addressed the 4th amendment as well and whether that required states to recognize those marriages that were legally performed in other states. Todays Supreme Court oral argument now we will hear argument in 14256 obergefell v. Hodges and the consolidate case. The intimate and committed relationships of samesex couples just like those of heterosexual couples provide support. If a commitment responsibility and protection that is marriage is offlimit do is gay people as class the stain of unworthy ness that following on individuals and families condridicts the purpose of the 14th amendment. What to you do as a windsor case where the court said the federal government will leave to state on marriage and domestic relations. States do have privacy but their laws must respect the Constitutional Rights of persons and this couldnt have been clearer. We have a whole class denied the equal right of the Government Institution that provides protection. You say join in the institution. The argument on the other side is they are seeking to redefine the institution. Every definition i found defines marriage between a husband and wife man and woman, if you succeed that definition is no longer optimal. We are talking about a class of people who by state law are excluded from being able to participate in this institution. If your honors question is about does this really draw such orientation lines. No my question is you are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change what the institution is. A fundamental core of the institution is the opposite sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a samesex relationship. Two points on that. To the extent if row are talking about the fundamental right to marry as malefemale institution it provides guarantee for the role of gay people in society. Just as the Lawrence Court called out the court for not appreciating the extent of the liberty at stake the same thing here; whether gay people share the same liberty. One of the problems is when you think about these cases you think about words or cases and the word that keeps coming back to me is millennial and plus time. First of all there hasnt been time so the respondants say for the federal system to engage in this debate; a separate state. But on a larger scale, it has been it was about the same time between brown and loving between lawrence and this case; about ten years. It is time for the scholars and comment to begin. I dont know how to talk about the definitions when we talk about millennial and this definition being with us for millennial. It is difficult for the court to say we know better. I dont think this is a question of the court knowing better. The place of gay people in our Civic Society is something that has been contested for more than a century. In the last century, immigration exclusion took place of gay people in Public Employment and federal service. These have been contested and you can see ten years of marriage for massachusetts but in the 1970s bigger case from minnesota reached this court and that is over 40 years ago. It was over 20 years ago that the hawaii Supreme Court seemed to indicate it would rule in favor of marriage and the American People have been debating and discussing this and the bottom line is that gay and lesbian family live in communities as neighbors throughout the country. You are arguing your brief fast. The primary purpose of the michigan law, marriage between a man and woman, was to demean gay people, is that correct . The michigan statute went out of their way to say gay people were anthetical to society. Scombl did you say the primary purpose was to demean gay people . I think it has had that effect. Is that true in michigan or every state that has a similar definition . Many of the states with additional amendments many are similar. There are some with statutes and some having none of the above. I think the commonality against all of the statutes is they have moral judgments and stereotypes about gay people. A hundred years ago gay people were not worthy of the concern of the government. How do you counter the fact that as far as i am aware until the end of the 20th century there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the samesex. Now can we infer those nations and cultures all thought there was some rational practical purpose for defining marriage in that way . Or is it your argument they were operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice . Your honor the position is that time is blind. If you think about the examples of sex discrimination that were protected by the 14th amendment but took a hundred years for the court to recognize the sex classification. And we went from a rational base approach to heightened scrutiny acknowledging this discrimination is not fair. We have a nation here of windsor and others. We infer that these societies all thought there was a rational and practical reason for this. I dont know what other societies assumed. But i believe times can blind, it takes time to see stereotypes and the common humanity of people who were once ignored. We would not be asking for this release if the law of marriage was what it was millennial ago. It wasnt possible. Samesex unions would not have made it into the pattern of marriage without a relationship a dominant and subordant relationship. It was marriage between a man and a woman but the man decided to tough it out. There was a change in institution of marriage to make it galitary. It wasnt galitarian if samesex unions wouldnt be mentioned in what marriage was. And for centuries we had a system where it was absorbed of that and men and women had different prescribed legal roles. Because of the quality and changing social circumstances all of those gender differences in the right and responsibility of the married pair have been eliminated and that is a system which committed samesex couples this is not a universal aspect of marriage around the world. Then again if you look at the basic definition it is between a man and a woman. It does not always say between a man and woman in which the woman is subordnant so i am not sure it is fair analogy. The thing about marriage is it is controlled by the states. The states create the definition of civil marriage and are accountable for the definitions and exclusions that follow. We know there were exclusions in cases like turner where in each case with prisoners but people behind on their Child Support cases with a mixed race couple wanted to join the institution and some of the exclusions were traditional not all societies banned mixed race marriages. Not even all states in this country banned such. I dont know of any do you know of any Society Prior to the netherlands in 2011 that permitted samesex marriage . As a legal manner . As a legal manner. I am not. Not a single other society until the netherlands in 2011. Taking that tradition as it is, one still needs, the court still needs the reason to maintain that tradition when it has that effect the resolution of course is not whether there should be samesex marriage but who should decide the point. Yes. You are asking us to decide it for this society when no other society until 2001 ever had it. And how many states have voted to have samesex marriage . Or their legislature or by referend referendum referendum . I think it is 11. I would count the state courts that interpret the constitution . Yes. The state courts that agree with you. That is not the people deciding it. It is judges deciding. In terms of this millennial, what has been the status or the view of gay people in most of those countries . Have they been subject to the kinds of discrimination that they were subject to here . Were they welcomed into the World Wide Community . Was it free of discrimination . If you are thinking of the world not every system around the world has a system with an explicit explicit explicit guarantee for equal rights. There are 1718 countries that do offer samesex marriage benefits in europe and south america. There have been cultures that didnt frown on homosexually and ancient greek is an example. But did they have samesex marriage in ancient greek . I dont believe they have anything similar to what we have. They had marriage didnt they . Yes. And they have samesex marriage relations, did they not . Yes. People like plato wrote in favor of that or approvingly of samesex relationship. Did he not . I believe so. So they are limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex was not based on prejudice against gay people, was it . I cannot speak to what was happening with the ancient greek people. But you said that well marriage is different because it controlled by the government. But from a historical standpoint, Justice Scalia was careful talking about society, and Justice Alito talks about cultures if you read about the ancient peoples, they didnt have a government rule. They made it themselves and it was man and wife. There were certainly prior to marriages prior to the United States forming and we recognize that. But in this union in 1787 and affirmed the 14th amendment and our nation made a commitment to individual equality. I would like to hear the answer to the precise question you have been asked several times. This has been the law everywhere for thousands of year among people who were not dis discriminating against gay people. And suddenly you want nine people outside of the ballot box to require states, that dont want to do it to change what you have heard is change what marriage is to include gay people. Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage . That same question has been put in many many ways in the briefs on our subject, you received it in three or four different ways and i would like to know so quarterbacking i can hear and understand what your response is. I apologize if i havent. In our system, with the 14th amendment which is set for principles we are all governed by, you look at examples like curvature, even if not universal, it was widespread in this nation for a very, very long time and that change in marriage was deeply unsettling to people. Likewise even if race wasnt used as the bases of discriminate discriminating it was persuasive and virginia resisted in the loving case and said policelease wait and see. 80 of the public was with virginia on that but it was a question of the individual liberty of the persons to do something that was considered a profound change in its time. First we ruled in favor of this case and after that a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license; is there any ground for denying them . I believe so. What are the reasons . Whether the state would say that is a marriage and then there are concerns about consent and disrupting family relationships when you talk about multiply persons. I want to go back to the other question if i may. I didnt understand your answer. I hope you will come back to mind if you want to go back to the earlier one. What if there is no reason two men and two women, it is not the sort of polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. Lets say they are all consenting adults educated they are all lawyers. What is the ground you would like to hand down . What is the logic of denying them the same right . Number one, i would assume the states would rush in when you talk about multiply people joining in that is not the same thing we have had in marriage which is the mutual support and consent of two people. I dont know what kind of distinguishment that is. A marriage between two people of the same sex is not something we have had before. Recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe a good one. But this is why is that a greater break . The question is assuming this is the fundamental right, the question is one of justification and i would assume states say there is a concern about consent. If there is a divorce from the second wife does the fourth wife have access to the child of the second wife . There is discussions about who makes the medical decisions and there would be family issues that dont apply when we talk about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. And dernturning to wait and see by itself it has never been considered a Free Standing justification under the 14th amendment. We are talking about the petitioners being denied marriage and a secondclass status. Part of wait and see is to ascertain whether the science studies are accurate. But that seems to me we should not consult at all the social science on this. You say we dont need to wait for changes. So it seems if we dont wait it is only fair to seeay we will not consult social science. I think the effects of waiting makes samesex couples second class citizens and setting that aside there have been trials, in the michigan case and in arkansas and florida, about adoption bans and they have been aired repeatedly and individuals heard about the social science agreement that there is nothing about the Sexual Orientation of the parent that will affect the childs outcome. This is not Research Just about gay people but the affects of gender. You are right the consequences waiting are not neutral. On the other hand one of the things that is extraordinary about this issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society. The situation in maine is characteristic. In 2009 they banned gay marriage, in 2012 they enacted it as law. That is a quick change and it has been a characteristic of this debate. If you prevail there is no more debut. Closing the debut closes minds. It has consequences about how this new institution is accepted. People feel differently if they have a chance to vote on it then if it is imposed on them by the court. There is a few points and i hope i get them all. One thing that separates maine from the states we are talking about is there wasnt a constitutional amendment in place that shuts down the process and it is difficult to amend the constitution. An opinion pole is not a measure of what a legislature is going to do poll to approve an amendment to go to the voters and serious structural problems didnt apply. When i think about acceptance i think about the nation as a whole. There are places with no protection for gay and lesbian people in parenting. The michigan petitioners have placed and approved of the adoptions. I am concerned about the wisdom of this court imposing through the constitution a requirement of action which impalatable to many because of religious regions. They are not likely to change their view on what marriage consist of. And were the states to adopt it by law, they could make exceptions to what is required for samesex marriage and who has to honor it and so forth. But once it is made a matter of constitutional law, those exceptions, for example, it is conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage, can decline to marry marry if indeed this court holds they have a constitutional right to marry . Is that conceivable that would be allowed . Your honor, of course the constitution will continue to apply in right to the state and no clergy is forced to marry anyone. But to this day we never held there is a constitutional right for these two people to marry and to the extent the minter is conducting a civil marriage he is an instrument of the state. I dont see how you can allow that minister to say i will only marry a man and a woman, not two men, which means you could have ministers who conduct real marriages that are civilally enforceable at the National Cathedral but not at st. Matthews downtown because that minister refuses to marry two men and therefore cannot be given the state power to make a real state marriage. I dont see any answer to that. I really dont. Counciler there is anti Discrimination Laws in states right . Yes. Involving gay people correct . Yes. And in any of those states have ministers been forced to gay samesex marriage . Of course not. They are laws. Not constitutional requirements. That is the whole point of my question. If you let the states do it you can make an exception. The state can say yes two men can marry but ministers who do not believe in samesex marriage will still be authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the state. You cannot do that once it is a constitutional prescription. For me it is firm that under the First Amendment that a clergy person cannot be forced to officiate a marriage. He is just not given the states power unless he agrees to use that power in accordance with the constitution. I dont know. Seems to me you have to make that exception. You cannot appoint people who will then go ahead and violate the constitution. I think if we are talk about a government individual a clerk or judge who is empowered to authorize marriage that is a different matter and they will follow thr