Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> THIS IS A RALLY GOING ON
OUTSIDE THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT. SHOULD THEY LEGALIZE
IT? SHOULD THEY BAN IT? WITH
TWO EXPERTS WORKING WITH
WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW.
IT IS ALL HAND DELIVERED
STAFF.
>> JIM HAMMER JOHNNY HAS.
>> THIS WILL BE 820 YEARS, A
50 YEAR CASE THAT WILL BE
DOWN THE ROAD. I DON'T
THINK THE SUPREME COURT WILL
BUY THE HOLDING OF TODAY.
WITH A AND YOUR INTERRACIAL
MARRIAGE, THEY SAID THERE
WAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO
MARRY IN WHOEVER YOU WANTED
TO MARRY. THESE STEPS, WILL
BE HUGE.
>> THEY ARE AT LEAST TAKING
A STAB AT POSTING OF THE
AUDIO. BY THE END OF TODAY,
WE WILL HAVE MORE INSIGHT ON
WHAT HAPPENED.
>> YOU DON'T WANT TO READ
TOO MUCH INTO WHAT A JUDGE
HAS TO SAY BUT IT IS A
POLITICAL PROCESS AT THE END
OF THE DAY. IT IS ALL ABOUT
JUSTICE KENNEDY. KENNEDY'S
TRACK RECORD ON THE ISSUES
AND THE LAST 25 YEARS, HE
BOWED BOTH TIMES AT FOR GAY
RIGHTS.
>> THE COUPLES THAT IT'S
THAT WE HAVE HEARD OUT OF
THE COURTROOM SO FAR OUR
FIRST THAT MAYBE THEY WILL
LEAVE IT ALONE. IF THEY DO
THAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN
FOR THE MAYORS IN
CALIFORNIA. AND THEN
>> AND THEN THERE WAS WAKE
AGO CALIFORNIA DECIDED NOT
TO FIGHT TO DEFEND THIS PROP
8. THE PRIVATE PARTIES TO
YOU CAN'T DEFEND PROP 8. THE
DECISION STANDS THEY SAID
THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS
THAT SAYS SAME-SEX THE COURT
TO BELIEVE TRIES NOT TO BITE
OFF THE WHOLE APPLE. THE
SUPREME COURT SINCE FLED THE
POLITICAL PROCESS WORK THIS
OUT. THEY SAY EVERY STATE
HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
FOR MARRIAGE, IS MORE
LIKELY.
>> THEY WANT LIGHT OF THE
FEDERAL LAW?
>> THAT AS A WHOLE OTHER
SERIES OF FIGHTS. THERE'S A
VERY CLEAR PATH IN THIS CASE
AS THEY THE PEOPLE THAT ARE
FIGHTING TO PROTECT PROP 8
DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND