OutCasting; The state of marriage equality after Windsor (Part 1 of 2)

a woman named ed windsor married her her fiance of almost felt more than forty years and they got married in canada actually because at that time you're not issued them a marriage license eve spouse thea had a degenerative disease and was in a wheelchair had to be flown in a wheelchair to canada nor to get married because new york at that time discriminated the federal government however did not respect their marriages because of the so called defense of marriage even though they were legally married they were discriminated against when it came to federal protections responsibilities and when thea died ed was denied spousal exemption from the estate tax and she was socked with a three hundred and sixty three thousand dollars tax bill that she would not have had to pay if he had been the ceo ed steve the supreme court ultimately opted to take the windsor case it was that case that brought down the so called defense of marriage acts discrimination against legally married couples this is the casting public broadcasting's ethan radio show dealing with lgbt q

struggles triumphs lifestyles supreme straight games where you don't have to be cleared be here podcast is a production of westchester public radio in new york this episode features the first half of a two part interview with evan wolfson the founder and president of freedom to marry the campaign to win marriage nationwide and this interview about caster travis talks with evan about the state of marriage equality to the united states following the supreme court's rulings in june twenty thirteen the united states versus windsor the case in which the court declared section three of the defense of marriage act unconstitutional and howitzer at first parry which cleared the way for marriage equality to be reinstated and california during the nineteen nineties and then served as co counsel in the historic lie a marriage case that launched the ongoing global movement for the freedom to marry and that is the author of the book why marriage matters america quality and gay people's right to marry is published by simon and schuster in two thousand for in two thousand the national law journal

named evan one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in america citing his national leadership on marriage in his appearance before the us supreme court in boy scouts of america versus james did newsweek and the daily beast dubbed evan the godfather of gay marriage and time magazine named him one of the one hundred most influential people in the world in twenty twelve and received the barnett medal a distinction alongside president barack obama thanks for joining us evan how has the supreme court's recent cases change the landscape for marriage equality in the us the big wins we had in the supreme court really added enormous momentum to our drive to end marriage discrimination nationwide supreme court did two big things first it changed the federal government from being the number one discriminate or against gay people to putting its moral and indeed legal weight on the side of our families the constitution and the freedom to marry by striking

down a core part of the so called defense of marriage act the supreme court in short that even though states will continue to discriminate for a period of time and that's the rest of the work we have to do the federal government will stop discriminating against gay couples who are legally married which will bring tangible important protections to families to married couples all across the country even in discriminating states and the supreme court also restored of the freedom to marry in california that of course meant an enormously joyous important opportunity for many tens of thousands of people all across the state of california but also restored california as a freedom to marry stay making in another engine helping pull the country allow we now have about a third of the american people living in a state where gay people have the freedom to marry at over a hundred million people up from zero a decade ago clearly tremendous momentum and yet our work is not done because that means there are two hundred million people still

living in a state that denies couples the freedom to marry and we're gonna continue until we get the job done other issues in the house we teach him to be more immediately important the marriage like as marriage rights or one other beneficial effects on efforts to address other issues like trans discrimination a chevy eight six letter oh yeah i've never understood the logic of saying we have to pick one part of our life over another as if you have to choose between witches more porn your job or your love is safety or security we want all and our work is not done until we all have it all everywhere that said there is no one single thing we could win that would bring more protections more respect more inclusion to more people than the freedom to marry and the proof of that is exactly what we've seen in our movement's history we've won more gender identity protections more non discrimination laws more gsa isn't safe schools more support for gay seniors during the period of arm open and which we've been fighting for the freedom to marry

than we did in the many many years where activists tried to avoid engaging in the fight for the freedom to marry the reason for that is marriage is not only important as a bundle of legal protections and personal meanings important status but marriage is also a vocabulary which people come to understand who we are and it helps transform there hostility or ignorance or lack of understanding or discomfort in to support and by claiming the vocabulary of marriage we help move everything we care about a lot now no one thing is everything and we don't have to pick and choose it's not a zero sum game we won a win at all that marriage is a mighty engine is pulling are moving forward explain why use the term freedom to marry rather than gay marriage or same sex marriage or same gender marriage we're not asking for something separate or other lesser that gay marriage or same sex marriage or marriage over

there any more than we want gay employment or gay safety we want to purchase a paid fully an equally in the things that belong to all of us as americans as human beings we don't want something other on the site called gay marriage we want marriage and what were winning is marriage when your state or for that matter california or iowa or spain or south africa or all the other places what we won the freedom to marry issue marriage licenses they don't issue gay marriage licenses issue marriage licenses it's very important that we talk about it in the terms of the common the connection because we want non gay people to understand that we're not just fighting to be left alone and sort of contain your own separate bubble we're fighting for our absolute freedom and write an opportunity to dissipate fully an equally in society in families in communities and under the law laws like doma and prop eight are trying to protect marriage what are they protecting marriage

from exactly well that's exactly right that's why these are orwellian propaganda terms that the right wing slapped onto the discriminatory laws marriage doesn't need defending from couples seeking to marry there's enough marriage to go around when gay people marry we don't use up all the marriage licenses has plenty of marriage to share and what we are also contesting is the right wing's claim that somehow we're trying to quote redefine marriage marriage is not defined by who is denied it when gay people sharing marriage it doesn't change other people's marriage doesn't take anything away from anyone else it means more people can participate just like when we finally overturn the supreme court ruling saying that women cannot be lawyers we didn't have to invent a new word for lawyer it just meant that both women and men could be a lawyer here's some states provide all or some of the rights of marriage to same sex couples through domestic

partnerships or civil unions why is the word marriage so important well one of the main protections that comes with marriage is indeed the word marriage when you say you're married everyone knows who you are in relationship to the primary person you're building a life with you have to hire a lawyer you have to plan a dictionary you don't have to produce fifteen different documents you have to go before a judge you're married everyone understands you've entered into a commitment that is both personal and legal and to be denied that language to be denied that clarity that security that immediately understood who you are in relationship to the person you're going to live with is to be denied something very very important that is both an insult to your dignity and your relationship and can also mean real legal consequences because it's that clarity of security that you most need in the times of crisis if you're running into a hospital emergency room if you were filing an application for a loner

for a sport you're singing your tax returns to be able to say and be understood that this is who you're connected to make a huge difference a lot of the opposition art to marriage equality or the freedom to marry say that marriages religious how do you address the opposition i think for some people the claimed that their opposition is religious functions more as an excuse the owners of the actual reasons in other words i think that people sometimes use religion as an excuse to shut down their own thinking in their own wrestling with who gay people are and why marriage matters and deeper values that are certainly spiritual and sometimes religious for people such as treating others as you want to be treated rendering unto caesar what is caesar's respecting somebody else's love and commitment and aspirations to make the most of our precious time

on this planet i think people sometimes invoked religion to shut down their actual thinking an engagement with something that may be new or uncomfortable for them that said there are of course many religions that you support the freedom to marry and do supported not only as a civil or a legal matter but as a matter of religious faith and doctrine and now at the end of the day it's up to each church each temple heat synagogue each mosque to decide for itself whom they will marinate the government has no business telling religion what religion docks religious doctrine should be or who should they who they should marry but no religion should be dictating to the government who gets a civil or a legal marriage license and that's what we're fighting for besides religion one of their strongest arguments against freedom to marry if they even exist yeah why i don't really think religion is a good argument against the freedom to marry but artists each persons entitled to decide for him or herself where they're going to go with that many religious people and the majority of

religious people in this country now support the freedom to marry sixty three percent of catholic support the free to marry irma majority of most most people in most states now support the freedom to marry there are only a handful of face at this point were a majority opposed the freedom to marry and even then opposition is declining that said the the reason religion does not constitute a good argument against civil marriage and the freedom to marry under the law is that most of us understand that we don't use the government as a weapon to enforce our religious views on others when it comes to the law religion should be able to decide for themselves who they will marry and the public sphere of the government the legal and civil marriage ought to be available to all in the same way there at government can't tell the catholic church that they must now perform marriages of divorced catholics that's up to them but the cardinal should

not be of the phone over to the clerk's office and say don't get that divorce catholic of a marriage license we all understand that difference and that's why religion itself does not constitute a good argument against the glory or civil marriage when you take away that that sort of sound bite that some people use to shut down the discussion my religion says such and such something they're perfectly willing to disregard when it comes all kinds of other things it turns out there actually isn't a good argument against allowing loving and committed couples the freedom to marry and that's why a quarter after quarter legislature after legislature and now a majority of the public have come to support the freedom to marry because in the in the light of a quarter in the light of a rational sober serious discussion it turns out there is no good argument no real logic and no good evidence supporting this discrimination we saw a lot of these arguments and of dissipating get

knocked down in the trial of rulings yeah well for example in the trial in california against proposition eight and for that matter when we did the world's first ever trial on the freedom to marry fourteen years before the prop eight case in hawaii the case that launched his ongoing global movement we heard many the same arguments and the same claims and we brought them into court we subjected them to cross examination we require the opposition not just to announce its views and not just just state it's prejudices and not just run tv ads to actually come into court with witnesses under oath and evidence and it turned out in hawaii in nineteen ninety six as in california during the twenty ten trial there is no good argument that stands in the light of a court there are no witnesses who are able to offer a serious substantial arguments that stand up under oath and when we went before the supreme court

earlier this year with a mountain of briefs and a mountain of argument as well as the trial record there was no argument that stood in the light of the courtroom in the supreme court as well and that's part of why the supreme court reached its ruling striking down the so called defense of marriage act and leaving standing the lower court ruling based on the trial that said there is no good reason for denying gay people differently if it was so obvious what other takes on it takes long because courts alone are not always willing to uphold the constitution's command and part of the reason there is a freedom to marry and the whole campaign that were leading to get the job done it is that we know from american history that the constitution's commands of equal protection and liberty for all and personal freedom are self actualize it you have to go in and fight for them to have the fight for them in the court of public opinion even as you're fighting for

them in the courts of law freedom to marry strategy the way we've we set out to win the freedom to marry that when no one was talking about it was number one to get people to talk to get people to to have the conversations to push past the religious shutting down there the discussion the discomfort that lead people to rubber stamp the exclusion we encourage the conversation because it's by talking by their weekly get people and then decision makers judges lawmakers governors president's ultimately justices to begin to embrace the truth is not just the fears the stereotypes the prejudices the assumption that lead people initially to rubber stamp the denial and perpetuated discrimination as week prompted this conversation we've created a climate that has encouraged decision makers political as well as judicial to begin dismantling this discrimination and live up to the

constitution to command the history of american civil rights is that while the constitution is clear making it real requires each of us to engage and to freedom to marry strategy which by the way is not a secret strategy it's on our web site calls on people calls on all of us to do our part to create a critical mass of states and a critical mass of public opinion by making that case personal conversations engagement and pushing that will ultimately create a climate that will enable the supreme court to then do its job and fulfill the constitution's command week we saw some of that happened in june but of course the supreme court didn't address the ultimate question that were seeking to to resolve which is how do we end this denial of the freedom to marry to gay couples and that's why the strategy going forward is the very same strategy that brought us to this point it's true now go out get more states continue growing public opinion engaging in conversations that will create a climate that

gets the supreme court to do the job and finished the job when we go back before the supreme court with the next marriage case but your question let's remember the supreme court got segregation wrong before it got it right the supreme court got the question of whether women should be allowed to be lawyers simply or or have a right to vote wrong before it got it right the supreme court got interracial marriage wrong before it got it right now why did we get it wrong before it got write the law is the law of the constitution is the constitution and you would you know i would agree that the truth is the truth but these things don't come by magic they don't come by waving a magic wand and four just as simple as hiring a lawyer and pulling out the document saying look we all would've been done decades ago the fact of the matter is in order to fill their truth in order to fulfill their constitution command you have to do the kind of work that freedom to marry has been

leading and that still is not dire we need to go out there now working together with this added momentum from our supreme court when this and go i'm getting the freedom to marry in more states indeed more partisan lines create more of a climate and then we will go back before the next wave of justices and get a job and this is the casting public broadcasting's youth run radio show dealing with lgbt q struggles triumphs lifestyles supreme strikeouts we all have to be cleared of this year we're listening to a discussion of apple's the founder president of freedom to marry the campaign to win marriage nationwide about the state of marriage equality in the united states following the supreme court's rulings in june twenty thirteen united states versus windsor case in which the court declared a section three of the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional or hans redeker says perry which cleared the way for marriage equality to be reinstated in california let's talk about the two cases that came out of the supreme court in june two thousand thirteen tells a bit about each one

and how it got to the supreme court short so did the two cases that the supreme court addressed in june involve challenges to both levels of marriage discrimination gay people are discriminated when it comes to marriage it at two levels a government the first is at the state level remembered states that issue marriage licenses we don't get that we don't get married according to the laws of congress appointed a federal law states issue marriage licenses and the first level of discrimination that most gay people still endure today even with everything we've won so far is that most gay people in most states are still denied marriage licenses when they apply because we've now won the freedom to marry in thirteen states plus the district of columbia which course means there are thirty seven states that continued to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples one of those states until recently with california california have the freedom to marry but it was stripped away with proposition

eight and the question before the supreme court was did that denial of the freedom to marry that stripping away the freedom to marry by california violate the constitution ultimately the supreme court concluded that the case was not properly before it there was an issue of standing in other words an issue that the anti gay forces who had brought the appeal from the lower court ruling did not have the right to appeal and therefore the supreme court threw the case out leading standing the lower decision to lower court the trial court decision that had found proposition eight unconstitutional so the net effect was restoring the freedom to marry that california had had and then had stripped away the question that the supreme court did not resolve that ultimately we will bring back to the supreme court once we've won enough states and enough public support is can any state deny loving and committed couples the freedom to marry just because they're gay

the other level of discrimination that gay couples and toward his federal marriage discrimination the congress in nineteen ninety six passed a law the so called defense of marriage act which said that even if gay couples are legally married the federal government will not treat them as mary the federal government will regard them as no more than roommates and therefore would not courted them unlike any other married couple the more than eleven hundred and thirty eight federal protections and responsibilities triggered by marriage show the so called defense of marriage act or doma created a gay exception to the ordinary way in which the federal government normally respects the law for marriage is celebrated in states the supreme court in an epic lee important ruling in june said that that gay exception was unconstitutional that the federal government may not discriminate against marriage is lawfully celebrated in the states or in the now eighteen countries on five continents where

we've won the freedom to marry up from zero virtually a decade ago so while that still leaves states discriminating and that's the next round of our course that's our next chapter is to end state discrimination the federal government now will no longer discriminated against lawfully married couples focusing on doma what is the factual back to the facts of the challenge to the so called defense of marriage act were actually very compelling a woman named ed windsor married her disperse fiance of almost but more than forty years and they got married in canada actually because at that time you're not issue them marriage license they got married after as i said forty some years together as a couple they eat were caring for one other living actually at that point ease spouse thea had a degenerative disease and was in a wheelchair or have to be flown in a wheelchair to canada or to get married because new york at that time discriminated discrimination weeks since fixed here in

europe and they lived together for another couple years as a married couple the federal government however did not respect their marriage because of the so called defense of marriage act even though they were legally married they were discriminated against when it came to federal protections responsibilities when thea died that meant that ed was denied spousal exemption from the estate tax and she was soft with a three hundred and sixty three thousand dollar tax bill that she would not have had to pay if he had been ceo ed sued and that case made its way through the courts alongside several other cases involving couples who had similar kinds of discrimination the supreme court ultimately opted to take ed windsors case and it was that case that brought down the so called defense of marriage acts discrimination against legally married couples did the court struck down doma in its entirety no don't actually has two principal parts one part was this gay exception for that denied married couples federal

protections and responsibilities that part the court struck down the other part of the so called defense of marriage act purports to license states to discriminate or not respect the lawful marriages that gay couple celebrates or create a gay exception to the normal ways in which states between themselves treat marriages that discrimination remains on the books and is part of what we're challenging in our broader campaign to end their skin nation nationwide and it's part of why congress needs to pass the respect for marriage act the lot that had the bill that we helped write that would repeal the socal defense of marriage act in its entirety get all their discriminatory language of the books and also codified the general principle that once you're married you're married that even if a state is can discriminate the federal government will not no matter where you live in the country and were pushing hard in all this need to contact their members of congress to make sure their

sponsors of the respect for marriage act and prepared to vote for it we were able to move it through the senate and house the president has promised to sign it when it hits his desk so continuing with the talk on doma the court seemed to spend a lot of time in its opinion explaining how doma intruded into the right of new york state to include same sex couples residing in new york is this the strongest legal argument to be made in favor of mayor of marriage equality in the freedom to marry not as strong as legal argument is that the constitution requires the government to give everybody equal protection under the laws and there is no good reason for it the federal government's as was decided in this case or as we expect will be decided when we know next go before the supreme court the states there is no good reason for the government to be creating a gay exception that treats some group of americans different from others that's the strongest argument bedrock equal protection there is no good reason for treating one group of people differently than the other when it comes to the freedom to marry him or

respect for their lawful marriages the other very powerful argument is the freedom to marry itself the supreme court has acknowledged at least fourteen times that the constitution guarantees that every american the freedom to marry there is no good reason for the government to arbitrarily abridging the freedom to marry by restricting marriage to only people of different sects any more than there was a good reason for the government and restricting the freedom to marry when it came to people's choice of a partner in marriage of a different race that's it for this edition about casting public broadcasting's youth from radio show dealing with the lgbt q sharples triumphs lifestyles supreme shakedowns we don't have to be weird to be here are two of this interview will be heard saying this show has been produced by the outcast until at westchester public radio in new york including yours participants last year chris josh george and maddy sydney travis and mina called dark decade of producers marc success

her casting is a production of west chester public radio in new york for more information on this program including a link to stream to mary's website visit us a wto if a shark and click on the casting coral thanks for joining us it's b