Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
over the past couple days we've heard a lot we've heard of beading huge debate
around algae bt marriage equality in the protection of marriage whether you know
or doma
the defense of marriage act on the united states
in the united states
supreme court
i want to take a moment sort of talk about that and i'll give you my opinion
on knows the possible outcomes on but in the court cases than in the course is
that the court as to make a decision one particular case the dough mckee's on the
united states verses windsor
army could extend competition of the consul promised america to of marriage
to all americans but began just in his beasley mayor of the results and i just
want to go bruins were talking about all the possible outcomes and my thoughts
and i think are faulted for our nation about those possible outcomes the first
of those possible all kinds of sprint could decide on his book marriage
equality for all the symbolism of obvious a solution for the justices to
com
johnson's justices is the file the constitution the constitution guarantees
equal protection of the law alton within the united states
and this guarantees the most robust
went up when it applies to groups that have better have experience in store
history of purposeful unequal treatment or been subject to unique discovered me
unique disabilities
on the basis of stereotyped stereotypical characteristics
although not typically indicated
of the nuts and women indicative of their ability honors our duty americans
are down to such a group the court has at least write down all mare
discrimination laws in the clear that the state must come up with bob with the
lawless compliant with the constitution
now i think in the ideal world that we all live in
this is what we were all walking right
the courts say
that pretty much marriage equality
for all because i read a few protection under the law and if in one state you
can be married and have all the protections of marriage didn't have that
same
on your partition the other stater equal protection
that's the idea we don't want that now how a status for for the record acting
that'd be so to speak to you
what we heard from the ports and i think you've heard a lot of comments on both
sides of the we have a lot of comment a lot of court dialogue or court by log
doesn't necessarily tell do you
alm
or core question in the questioning of the just business only tell you opt out
what they did what the what the outcome will be i think the one twenty to this
situation
on is something that said that the justice ruth bader ginsburg
sort of stated in her arguments when she wanted her in the questioning which is
what it said
so you want one mary you want your look no one marriage to be this great thing
the whole milk india was the skim milk in the city two different things
on and see if your sour milk was her verbage
so you wouldn't get two different types of milk and you're saying about the same
thing at every doesn't make any sense
the all possible solutions for work and come out with his marriage apollo
medical quality in new york
apart on on what's happening all day long
although there's discrimination could be
could could be square with the constitution justice kennedy has a
history of deciding demerit right cases on a very narrow grounds
neither of his two leading gay rights opinions
follow the ordinary framework applied to long denied equal right to to a group
historically subject to be ripped ticker irrational prejudice
and instead relying on the novel india reasoning for this reason is possible to
strike down doma does extending federal mantra is the same sex couples
parts on the larger question of whether every state must comply with the
constitution if this happens
the key question is whether the judges who apply the heightened scrutiny to
doma aki up miki to the skeptical competition analysis
arm that will make it very difficult for him for any anti-gay law to withstand
the court review of the future
now and they were taking their point
uh... it sort of speaks volumes to sort of www you know where we're where we are
as a country right
so
in this situation they will sort of thirty cases in the exist and then
they'll save a lot
well you know that cases in exist
you can you be a lot more nair near open-air position sort of by those
rights but
every state will be you know resource or a couple of one of the conflict or
solution to this problem
now we've seen you look at argumentation that's happened on the questioning
regarding
this possible decision
and and you see the jess is a little bit on both sides right you see just as a
sort of falling to left for the right
and you know it so she's going to why we did doma to begin with and i think
stiletto just selected justice delayed elena kagan excuse me
sort of senate passage he said
if you look at the congressional record on this
members of congress created this bill because they want to scrutinize
people vote cardiology bc movement had nothing to do
absolutely nothing to do with tried to protect america's most of the condemn a
particular lifestyle
and therein lies the problem
there in sort of lies the biggest problem that we have with nick nolte bt
quality in the entire gay movement in this country it's not as early about
protecting marriage is more so about saying you're wrong you're living a life
of shame
point the finger on hw
you're part of the problem
here's the new simon good morale
godin creating adam and steve
all the rhetoric that we've heard
over and over and over again
right
opera and you know
i think to go further on that
what we've also heard number talk with us in signal votes up there with me on
the state of the tobacco wanted to be that right away because i think it's a
funny point and it's a point of the purple obviously
but the other possible option is they can say there's no jurisdiction
the is not usually end messiest way for the jess's the resolve this case of a
ruling that they do not have just itching to hear it in the first place
the real possibility in by the fact that the state that they schedule fifty
minutes of arguments of time and the plug on the question of whether not the
court had jurisdiction
if there is no if the answer is no the results could be biggest sloppy and
messy normally when the court is that it lacked the protection of the case of the
cold
it uh... also people that the case shouldn't should never compartment but
of course to begin with
this case or presented it for them to you need
on huge all circumstances with the supreme court might not have
jurisdiction to hear
an appeal even though
near nearly everyone agrees that the trial the trial court
that sided with the plaintive
challenging doma
was it then it's a lawful authority
on what i've heard the case because certain kinds of this case are so one
usual it is not entirely clear what will happen if the courts hold the lack the
lack of section one known one-woman attorneys hoping cotton has told
they tried to get this information about the progress that great shot up to them
they would mean doma would be invalid in new york in new england where the
federal with a federal appeals court struck it down
but on the ballot also ahead
would you be messy so uncertain jurisdictions valid and her other jersey
is not valid
so this notice it disneyland restriction and i think it you know
this is obviously the messiest way in this will be done with his own awkward
is the very popular in this debate working decision it's just that the
message
bury their units
uh... and i think
so to speak about the messiness of this case right
that summer break is that it really understand
how this case has you know ridicule the facts
and it doesn't look forward to it as well
are if somebody was to get it to get individualism to decide to get married
uh... and one is a start in the military and the other is a civilian
and they get married again
i don't know let's use d_c_ so they get married a police air force base which is
that in the states where marriage of quality of the latter gay marriage is
something that's legal
and then that family gets transferred to say
you know class dot
right the protections that the marriage had
in the state of new york
davis will become inferior assist us in prayer and fear your resident because
their marriage protection zone applied in alaska but they applied in it
in washington d_c_ here they apply in new york
and the fact of the federal protection a division of the federal the federal
title of this was about eleven thousand benefits
that those families get in new york
they get in d_c_
they get a vermont they get a message is that they don't get them in alaska
and that means that people protection under the law
which is why we don't have to be a repeal on domo for us to fix this whole
situation
and fix this whole issue
now before i go to break i want to take a personal time to they'll ask upset
that leads to indict all those people that have made all these bogus claim so
yesterday there was a rally
or a couple days ago skis me there was a rally for
you know the second protecting marriage and they made all these art with that
where there is marriage there's no abuse or there is a marriage there's no ***
assault
how it is marriages automatic our lives
and i thought to myself where there's marriage there's no domestic violence
and you look at the staff you realize that domestic violence
married couples that's why they prefer once for them
just saying
salt understands that uh... that the marriage for middle men is a complete