Skip to main content

tv   All In With Chris Hayes  MSNBC  June 27, 2013 12:00am-1:01am PDT

12:00 am
we didn't always have women as well as men participate in our elections on all of these fronts, we've changed we've become better. the american revolution continues to roll on and today a large battle was won. when you hear the celebrations tonight, i think of where it is being celebrated quietly, in the young boy or girl who now feels so much more to be okay in the eyes of all of us. of the lonely soul who now feels he or she belongs. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes, and it's been an incredible 24 hours of democracy on display in the united states of america. tonight the newest and brightest star of the democratic party, texas state senator wendy davis will be here to discuss her
12:01 am
unbelievable filibuster, a dramatic 11-hour stand for women, and an improbable victory that captured the nation's attention last night. that's coming up, and speaking of rising stars. joaquin castro is here to talk about how the new fight for voter's rights, the critical issue, the 2014 election has already begun. but we begin with the monumental news that was delivered to us this morning by the supreme court of the united states. >> take a look now, huge crowds outside the supreme court today. >> the supreme court has just struck down the federal defense of marriage act. [ cheers and applause ] >> the law passed by congress in 1996, signed by president
12:02 am
clinton that prevented the federal government from recognizing the validity of same sex marriages in the states where they're legal. >> children born today will grow up in a world without doma. the same children who happen to be gay will be free to love and get married, as thea and i did, but with the same federal benefits, protections and dignities and everything else. >> pete williams has the decision we think was previewed. >> the supreme court has decided that it cannot take up the challenge to california's proposition 8, same sex marriage is now once again legal in the state of california. >> the president is on the line, from air force one, president obama. >> hello, mr. president, this is chris perry. >> we thank you for your support. >> we're proud of you guys and in california -- innaudible ].
12:03 am
♪ that sometimes there are battles which are more than black or white ♪ >> so today is a good day? >> it's the day i finally get to look at the man that i love and finally say, will you please marry me? >> today the supreme court opened up same sex marriage once again in california. the most populated state in the country and ruled that any couple is legally married in their state, in these united states is married before the eyes of the federal government. this is a watershed moment in the century's long struggle for
12:04 am
equality in this country. it is a sweet sweet victory and it is important in this life to saver those. joining me now is dan savage, director at the stranger. american savage, insights, flights and faith, sex, love and politics. dan, where were you when you got the news it was early out in seattle. where were you, what was your reaction? >> i was sitting in my kitchen at my computer refreshing my twitter feed over and over again, while my husband of 18 years was upstairs in bed asleep. and our 15-year-old son d.j. was downstairs in bed asleep. and i cheered so loud i woke them both up. >> i interviewed you on my
12:05 am
previous program the day before you were legally married in the state of washington after that state, through a ballot initiative had legalized marriage equality. what does this mean for you? in your every day life. what does it mean now for you? >> well, pragmatically, as has been pointed out by other people, some of the most important incidents of marriage kick in at the worst moments of your life. at the end of life, being able to make end of life decisions for your partner, for you, your spouse. but at tax time, terry and i, because we're married and the federal government didn't recognize our marriage we weren't able to file jointly, we paid about $80,000 more perhaps in the last year in taxes than we would have otherwise, basically our son's college education funds drained from us, because one of us didn't have a vagina. in practical terms we're going to see our tax bill cut significantly by being treated fairly, by being treated by any other couple and not being penalized for loving each other and committing to each other the way we have.
12:06 am
>> i want to read some of justice scalia's dissent in this case. it was a 5-4 decision. this is justice scalia writing for those -- to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements any more than to condemn the constitution of the united states is to condemn other constitutions. to hurl such accusations so easily -- >> what was your response to the decision. >> a string of profanities. you either can support traditional marriage or you support gay marriage.
12:07 am
i'm a huge supporter of traditional marriage. my father happens to be in a traditional marriage as does my brother, sister. my neighbors who we love very much are all traditionally married heterosexuals and we're big supporters of their relationships and they're all big supporters of us and our relationship and our marriage. it season the -- you can love traditional marriage for people who are heterosexual and you can love gay marriage for your friends and neighbors and colleagues who are gay, lesbian or bisexual. it's not the either/or that scalia would have you believe that it is. >> i have to say, dan, that my straight marriage today feels incredibly undefended. it's just naked and vulnerable out there in the world. thank you so much. >> thank you, chris. >> joining me now is mary bonato. she's been called the legal architect of the doma repeal, an incredible attorney and
12:08 am
incredible voice in this movement for equality. you were on the legal team that brought the case. there were a lot of questions. a lot of people were feeling cautiously optimistic that on doma, that the court was going to rule in your favor. there was a big question about how broad or narrow that ruling might be, when you got that opinion in your hands today and you read through it, what was your sense of how broad or narrow is this? where is this on the scale of what you wanted out of this court? >> i would say it was practically perfect. it was a terrific ruling, it was a strong equality ruling. justice kennedy didn't go for the federalism issue that some people speculated he would. it is unusual, of course, to have the federal government saying anything about marriage and he noted that in the context of equal protection and saying, why was the federal government essentially overriding state's determination that people are married when it comes to all federal laws. anyway, it was a terrific decision.
12:09 am
>> you were an early litigant in trying to push this at the state level. you were part of the lawsuit in massachusetts, the state supreme court in massachusetts ultimately found that any kind of differential marriage in that state violated that state's constitution, when you started this undertaking, do you think you would see a moment like today in your lifetime? >> i hoped i would. i remember when doma was passed by the congress in 1996 and, of course, that was eight years before we had marriage anywhere, and i knew doma was an outlier then, it was a special rule just for gay people to disadvantage them. it was important today to see the clarity of that decision, to make it known that doma was intended to demean gay people. now we have a situation where doma's official disrespect for our relationships has been replaced by respect by the
12:10 am
federal government for all of these 1,000 laws that are affected. >> the majority of states in this union do not have marriage equality. some of them, many of them have prohibitions at the constitutional level against it. today a fascinating thing happened. justice scalia handed folks like you who are warriors on behalf of equality, a road map for how to take the majority's decision and use it to just crack everything open wide. in his dissent he takes part of the majority opinion and says, hey, guys this is how you take the majority opinion, cross out a few words and what you end up with is the identical argument to strike down every ban of marge equality across the nation, is that your next step? >> that discussion is already underway. there are five lawsuits right now in federal court challenging constitutional bans on marriage. there are state level efforts to win legislatively, cases in
12:11 am
state courts. i mean, the discussion is happening, and i think over the next number of years, you're going to see every branch of government, state and federal involved in these discussions. and, of course, the court of public opinion. we are undoubtedly moving forward, and i think this issue will be back at the supreme court. the doma decision, and i want to give a shoutout to edye and the aclu and the stanford law clinic who drove that case and did a phenomenal job. the decision was about doma. it's really clear about i the ringing declarations that equality means equality. including for gay people and in the context of gay people's family relationships, this is a building block going-forward. >> anthony kennedy cites the fifth amendment of the constitution, and the violation of equal protection, that constitution pertains in every state. >> joining me now is congressman
12:12 am
lee. she's a founding member and vice chair of the lgbt caucus. my question for you is, you are a very outspoken progressive, you're part of the broad coalition that is progressivism, and the liberals in america. what does today mean for that broad coalition that includes people from so many walks of life. so many races and creeds and cultures and backgroundses and circumstances, what does today's decision mean for that coalition. >> i tell you, today we reaffirm that there is equal justice under the law. this was a major decision for those who believed that discrimination is wrong. for those who believed that justice and fairness and equality should prevail. i think today for our coalition. but also for our entire country this is a good day, because the constitution is very clear for protections on everyone, and
12:13 am
nondiscrimination, and so i think we have to move forward now and make sure that all of our states in the country really, i think, live up to what the constitution requires and the supreme court decision today opened that door. and i am so pleased and proud of this. >> i'd like to ask you about the white house. the white house made a really remarkable decision, i think it's important to take a second to note that the justice department did something pretty extraordinary out of the ordinary, they refused to defend the law, doma. they said, we find this unconstitutional. what that meant was, today, the president could be celebrating with the rest of most of his coalition, with a lot of people in america. it meant that they were, when history looks back, not on the wrong side of history, what is the significance of that specifically, of the president taking that stand in terms of the decision today. >> that was the right decision, the president did the right thing, his administration was on the right side of this, i have
12:14 am
to applaud the president. it took a lot for him to come out and do this, in the administration, but they were right, they came down on the side of the constitution, and equality, and the republicans. i believe spent about $23 million just opposing and trying to rally against what took place today at the supreme court. i'm proud of our president, and i'm very proud of everyone who stood firm and fought for justice, equality and equal justice under the law. this was a major, as i said, a constitutional decision that i hope everyone will look at, because now we can move forward and hopefully insist that there be equal justice under the law for everyone. >> congresswoman barbara lee, democrat from california, always a pleasure. thank you very much. >> thank you. many people were sleeping last night, one of the most dramatic moments in politics in recent memory played out in the texas state house, a one-woman filibuster that lasted 11 hours. the woman who did that will be here coming up.
12:15 am
12:16 am
12:17 am
late last night the twitter account of the president of the united states tweeted the following, something special is happening in austin tonight. #stand with wendy. he was referring to the absolutely epic 11 hour filibuster by texas state senator wendy davis. senator davis joins me next.
12:18 am
last night into early this morning, i was one of 160,000 people watching this on the internet. >> if we can have order in the
12:19 am
chamber, so the members can properly cast their vote. >> those were the final dramatic moments of one of the most remarkable acts of political leadership i have ever seen. wendy davis took to the floor on the final day of the senate's special session for a planned 13-hour filibuster to stop senate bill five, an anti-abortion bill that would be one of the most restrictive in the country if passed. this filibuster is a genuine test of will and physical stamina. she was not allowed to sit down, she was not allowed to lean on anything. she could not eat or drink or use the bathroom. she needed to only speak about topics germane to the bill, and she needed to do this from 11:18 in the morning until 12:00 midnight. she was more than up to the challenge. and after nearly 11 hours of standing and talking, republicans interrupted davis' filibuster saying her discussion
12:20 am
about ultrasounds was off topic on a bill about restricting abortion rights. republicans tried less than two hours before the session was over, to use this alleged infraction to push through senate bill five. this is when davis' democratic colleagues tried to use parliamentary procedures to run out the clock. they made it. when a senator's motion was ignored in favor of a male republican colleague who motioned for a vote on the bill. >> did the president hear me state the motion? or did the president hear me and refuse to recognize. >> senator, you are now recognized on the motion to adjourn. >> i do not wish to make that motion at this time, senator. >> okay. >> at what point must a female senator raise her hand or voice to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room? [ cheers and applause ] >> those cheers you hear, they
12:21 am
opens um a wave of emotion, all the people rooting for wendy davis to stop this bill realized they could take it over the finish line, with 50 minutes to go, the gallery became the senate floor. and these cheering people kept a vote from happening before the midnight deadline. they took wendy davis' courageous lead and won an inspirational victory if temporary for the moment. >> and joining me now is texas state senator, wendy davis, a democrat who represents ft. worth in district ten. senator, my first question to you is having watched a good chunk of your filibuster yesterday, what was going through your head at that time, and body, were you like the runner in the 26th mile of the marathon at the end of that?
12:22 am
>> it certainly felt that way at times. and it really wasn't just a physical endurance, but a mental endurance as well. because unlike our senate tradition where a filibuster is respected and there are points of order called upon it, i was subject to several points of order yesterday that ultimately shut things down and that was as much a test of my endurance as anything, just trying to anticipate what those pints of order might be, stay ahead of them, and stay out of anything that might occasion one. >> people watching what was going on, a lot of people felt that your colleagues, particularly your male republican colleagues were being disrespectful and condescending to you, did you feel that way as you stood in that chamber? >> i did. but i wish i could tell you that was atypical here. on this particular issue, i think it became even more stark that we were talking about a
12:23 am
group of primarily men who were coming together to make decisions about women's health care, and women's access to health care in the state of texas. and literally intruding upon private decision making by women. and so i think maybe perhaps people viewed it more starkly in that regard. >> we just got news today, governor perry has called another special session for next week to push this bill among a few others. and he said this, i thought this was an interesting sentence in his statement, we will not allow the breakdown of de core um and decency to present us from doing what the people of this state lettered us to do. how do you respond to that? >> i would respond to that by saying governor perry and lieutenant governor due hurst led the charge in terms of a breakdown of de core um, they have overridden and made a mochrie of all of the rules that we run by in this state. first by taking an issue that couldn't make it through the regular session where we have a two thirds majority rule in the
12:24 am
senate in order to bring a bill up to the floor rule, and instead moving it to a special session where lieutenant governor duhurst made a decision that we would no longer respect that 2/3 decision. that this bill could pass by a simple majority, and what we saw yesterday was injury added to that insult, where senate rules became meaningless, and those who were watching and understand anything about our rules in texas, understand that the presiding officer, the lieutenant governor used every ability that he had to run roughshod over those rules to shut the fillibuster down, to force this bill through, and what we see is that they're going to do that again, and i think the people that were there in the gallery yesterday were observing de core um in the most respectful way, until they no longer could take it, because they saw that the presiding
12:25 am
officer was expecting that observation of them, but he was not conducting himself in that way, and ultimately in that last 15 minutes of the evening, it became the people's filibuster and they were loud, and they were heard. and that's what democracy is about, and i was really proud of the way people conducted themselves. >> that was an amazing moment to watch. all right, there is a gubernatorial election in 2014, your state has not elected a statewide democrat for quite some time. are you going to run for governor? >> you know, i would be lying if i told you that i hadn't had aspirations to run for a statewide office. i love this state, and it's been an incredible opportunity to represent it in the texas senate, i think, though, the real story will be, will the sentiment of people hold? will they demonstrate their desire for new leadership in this state? if yesterday was any indication, i think chances are pretty good
12:26 am
that that's going to be the case. >> did you know there were 100,000 people watching the live stream last night? and what do you say to state legislators in mississippi or in alabama or in north carolina right now that are fighting fights on this terrain. what do you say to them? >> keep up the fight. i think that people are hungry for leadership. that's going to stand up and take positions on their behalf. yesterday that filibuster was about handing that microphone, essentially to the people of the state of texas. and they saw it for that, and they participated in that to the extent that they could. and for me, it was a very encouraging sign that people appreciate when you take a tough stand and you do hard things in order to make sure that their personal liberties are preserved against the tide of big government intrusions that are being pushed upon them like people -- by people like governor perry and lieutenant governor duhurst. >> spoken like a true citizen of the republic of texas.
12:27 am
thank you so much. >> thank you. >> do you know whose seat would have been lost to redirecting if not for section five of the voting rights act? texas state senator wendy davis. more on that coming up. [ snoring ] ♪ [ snoring ] [ male announcer ] zzzquil™ sleep-aid. [ both snoring ] [ male announcer ] it's not for colds. it's not for pain. it's just for sleep. [ snoring ]
12:28 am
[ male announcer ] because sleep is a beautiful thing™. ♪ zzzquil™. the non-habit forming sleep-aid from the makers of nyquil®. ♪
12:29 am
12:30 am
progressives everywhere are celebrating the supreme court's landmark decision today on marriage equality. yesterday's big ruling, the one that all but killed the very heart of the votes rights act has cast a shadow on the triumph
12:31 am
of this day. it's already heralding in what promises to be a long, difficult bruising struggle for equal access to the polls. literally within hours of the supreme court's decision to strike down section 4 of the voting rights act yesterday, the state of texas moved to capitolize on what officials there see as a political victory. texas attorney general greg abbott announcing the state would be immediately implementing a voter i.d. law that was blocked last year under the now defunct authority of the voting rights act. with today's decision, the state's voter i.d. law will take effect immediately. and while he was at it, he also made a push to revive the redirecting maps texas republicans tried to implement back in 2011, by which a federal judicial panel said last year violated the voting rights act. redirecting maps passed by the legislator may take effect without approval of the federal government. some texas republicans in other words seemed awfully excited that they no longer have to prove that their voting laws
12:32 am
are not discriminatory before implementing them. and they are not alone. five other states also appear poised to move ahead with voter i.d. laws, the supreme court has relieved them from federal scrutiny. you are not mistaken. arkansas mississippi, alabama and virginia have already passed voter i.d. laws that no longer need preapproval. and south carolina signalled its intent to move forward with the voter i.d. law that had been previously blocked. joining me now is joaquin castro. as a democrat in texas, a latino democrat in texas, i feel like yesterday's decision has a very, very special relevance to your political future. >> well, certainly, chris, many of us were very disappointed yesterday in texas and throughout the country with the decision of the supreme court. i live in a state where as recently as two years ago, a federal court found that the texas legislature, the
12:33 am
republican texas legislature intentionally discriminated against minorities in drawing congressional districts and other districts and so this voting rights decision certainly doesn't help in a state like texas. >> i would even go a little further than it doesn't help. let's look at the stark facts of the state of texas, it's growing in population, the population growth is coming disproportionately from hispanics, it's going to be the case in the near future that there will be a hispanic majority in that state, if you are a white republican in the state of texas, you have every incentive to limit the growing power of that majority. >> that's exactly right. as you mentioned greg abbott said that the voter i.d. law that was passed in 2011 would take effect immediately. but they also regulated things on polling places on mail balloting, all sorts of regulations that are aimed at
12:34 am
shaving off democratic voters. and i'll give you one quick example. >> please. >> in that voter i.d. law, they allow for the use of military i.d., they don't allow for the use of student i.d. clearly favoring voters that tend to be more conservative over those that tend to be more democratic. >> congressman, you're a member of congress as well. and the supreme court has kicked this across the street into your and your colleagues laps. have you had conversations with your colleagues about attacking this problem immediately? >> quite honestly, it's a tough conversation, for a lot of republicans, who especially in the states that you mentioned, the nine states, often times where the republican primary is controlled by tea party folks, it's going to be tough for some of them to essentially come to an agreement where they're admitting, hey, the justice department should be reviewing what my state does with respect to elections. now that the supreme court has made this decision, the job of congress is to try to come to an
12:35 am
agreement and still have some oversight with respect to elections and voting. but it's going to be a tough haul about. >> do you see any nexus between the immigration bill that is moving its way through the senate, it looks like we may get a vote on it tomorrow, and the voting rights decision yesterday in terms of the way that the coalition politics in america are playing out? because it seems to me like texas is really the ground zero for this future political battle for the country. and obviously immigration reform is going to have a lot to do with what the demographics of the voting population of your state looks like in the near future. >> oh, sure, i think all of these issues will affect elections. texas, for example, is a state that by 2020 will be about 45 or 46% latino in the ten years after that, will be over 50% latino. same thing for california. so immigration reform and how we
12:36 am
handle how the congress handles adjusting the voting rights act are going to be crucial in the coming years. >> finally, we just had wendy davis on, and i saw, i think you tweeted some support last night. >> i did. >> what does her moment last night, and i should be very clear, that bill was not passed in that session, the governor's called another one. that fight is going to start next week. what did that moment mean for texas democrats who had been on the map for so long in that state? >> yeah. chris, that literally was the moment that texas democrats came alive, i spent ten years in the legislature waiting for a night like that, and i never got it, we never got it when i was there. and so it was electrifying last night, i stayed up here in washington until 2:30, 3:00 in the morning following all the coverage, sending out tweets, and there was so much energy, you could tell, we're all very proud of wendy, glad that she and the other state senators and legislators stood up for what they believe. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we are not finished talking about the huge news in the
12:37 am
supreme court's ruling on the defense of marriage act and prop 8 today. barney frank, the one and only joins me next. with prilosec otc, we don't have to suffer like they used to. [ bell dings ] ♪ [ horse whinnies ] getting heartburn and then treating day after day is a thing of the past. block the acid with prilosec otc, and don't get heartburn in the first place. we've sure come a long way. ♪ [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn.
12:38 am
12:39 am
12:40 am
discuss due to time constraints tonight, click three has hit the cutting room floor. tonight's click three will be up at our facebook page we'll be right back.
12:41 am
12:42 am
12:43 am
12:44 am
i think that for political purposes, the majority is doing something that they really don't want to do which is announcing that congress has the power that they don't really think it has, and in fact by announcing here, they are weakening, rather than strengthening states rights. they're announcing it's up to congress to decide whether or not you will give full faith or credit. >> that was former congressman barney frank, speaking at a hearing of the defense of marriage act in 1996, questioning whether the republicans really wanted to say that the federal government had the right to tell the states what did or did not count as marriage. despite opposition, doma was passed in 1996, but now the supreme court has struck it down. joining me now is barney frank, he was the first member of
12:45 am
congress to voluntarily come out in 1987, and his decision to do so changed the landscape for politics. >> i want to get your reaction to the news this morning. where were you when you heard and what did you feel when you heard it? >> i was at an msnbc studio in washington. >> our bookers are good. >> i was in washington yesterday because my portrait was hung in the committee room i'm pleased to say prominent in the portrait is my wedding ring. i was asked to be at msnbc at 10:00 we knew the decision was coming down, i was sitting in the chair when i heard the great news, after finishing the program jim and i went over to the supreme court to spend a very happy time. my reaction obviously was great happiness, a couple factors. my husband can now come on to my federal employee retired health
12:46 am
benefits, he's been an independent small businessman doing construction. that's for me and many others. >> that's a huge deal. >> there are hundreds of thousands of people who will get the benefits they've been paying taxes for. secondly, i talk about the constitution as a series of efforts to extend to the people who are excluded from the great principles of the constitution of the declaration of independence, those rights. and we're the last group to get them. the equal protection clause has been a major way to protect groups from discrimination. first obviously african-americans, but other ethnic groups, women, to a great extent thanks to ruth bader ginsburg.
12:47 am
today's decision didn't strike down the defense of marriage act, it recognized fairly clearly that we are entitled to the protection of the equal protection ability. and finally, you had the california decision which means that 30 million more americans are going to say where that right exists. these victories are self-reenforcing. the more we have people able to marry, the harder it's going to be for the anti-s to say it's going to cause harm. in the end, the way we win this is, reality defeats prejudice. >> what is the lessen. i want to talk about the moment this was passed, it's an intense lesson about how politics works and democracy works. what made this law come into effect in 1996. >> robert dole's presidential candidacy. it looked as if the hawaiian court was going to say yes at that point some of my gay and lesbian friends announced that
12:48 am
if hawaii accepted same sex marriage, it would then be universal in the whole country. that was never a good law, and it was terrible politics that gave the right wing the reason to step in. hawaii never went forward with that but bob dole was the senate leader, he was running against bill clinton for president and within a short period of time in the summer of '96, the republicans saw this as a great issue, to use against bill clinton. that's exactly why it got passed to try to give bob dole leverage against clinton. the court recognizes discrimination against any group holds us back in our efforts to form a more perfect union. >> it's not just the arc of bill clinton, paul willstone, one of the great liberals of our time voted for that bill. in 1996, the country was in a
12:49 am
very tough position. we were beginning to win the fight against unfair treatment, but marriage was the toughest issue, so what bill clinton did was frankly what most democratic applications and every republican politician did. >> made a calculation. we'll be right back with joy reed, constitutional law professor and barney frank. stick around.
12:50 am
12:51 am
12:52 am
electrical martin luther king jr. used to say, when people talked about interracial marriages, and i quote, racists do not fall in love and get married, individuals fall in love and get married. why don't you want your fellow men and women to be happy. people want to get married.
12:53 am
buy a house and spend their lives with the one they love. >> that was congressman and civil rights leader, john lewis. speaking against the anti-defense of marriage act in 1996. joining me is joy reed and a constitutional law professor at new york university school of law. and also still with me, barney frank. today's an awesome day, a great day, a beautiful day it's a moving, overwhelming day, it is tainted to me by yesterday. i was -- i have to say, i was so angry at that decision. i was surprised at how angry it made me, and i feel whiplash and confusion and my heart is an emotional pretzel after the last two days.
12:54 am
how do we make sense of these two days back to back. >> i want to add on the third day, affirmative action day, i don't think it got good attention. if we're trying to make sense of it, we're looking at first and second generations of discrimination. gays are as john lewis is articulating, where african-americans were in 1967. it's relatively easy for the court to see. what's much harder to deal with is when the discrimination is even slightly jiggered in a way, so that instead of talking about eliminating the vote for african-americans, we talk about voter i.d. or literacy tests. >> doma just says gay people can't get married. the mechanisms people use for racial discrimination are much craftier. >> exactly. no one is going to stand up and say, i'm for racism what they'll
12:55 am
do instead, which is not to say racism is over. it's just to say racists will use code words, crime, immigration, what have you. >> and the court has a hard time picking that up. >> the only connective issue i've been able to find the only one i can find is sort of an anti-federal argument saying the federal government should have respected the states wishes, so we'll go with that, and the federal government has to be deferencial to the way the states want to do. i find this court the most blatantly political. i think john roberts has a good cop bad cop mentality.
12:56 am
they give us the good news of the doma decision last. >> let's talk about consistency. >> they were more consistent than those on the right side. it was justice kennedy. >> we shouldn't overstate there's one guy. i'm pleased that i did not have to chose between did i want a good day on voting rights or today, i'm heart broken by this, i would disagree with someone who said, the court doesn't get it, they get it, they knew what they were doing, they knew they were supporting this kind of discrimination, they are a very political court. yesterday was bad news for gay people as well. i want to see a nondiscrimination act passed. the fact is, what happened yesterday the court made it harder for us to find people who would be supportive of lgbt
12:57 am
rights. i was won who was urging lgbt people not to push a same sex amendment to immigration, i didn't want to kill the immigration bill. so important to the hispanics, because for years the hispanic caucus was supportive of our efforts now with this doma decision -- >> it takes it off the table. >> without that problem many. >> on a facebook feed, someone i know when i was living in chicago, she posed a picture of her and her partner and their kid in front of the picture with the news of this decision, because it means maybe we could move back to the u.s. it's an incredible -- >> i think the congressman makes a good point. they could have just obliterated anti-gay laws in all 50 states, if you live in a state like new york you have more rights than a
12:58 am
state like florida. i was surprised at how angry i was at clarence thomas. i think there is nothing more sad than somebody like clarence thomas who could have made the difference in the voting rights decision, but who consistently ruled on the side against the oppressed, against the people whose rights are being taken away. >> he's always made it clear that he's the last person that should have benefited from affirmative action. i think with regard to the decision, the incident. that professes you, this has limitations beyond same sex. this was the first statement that lgbt people are entitled -- we would not have gotten that if it wasn't for john boehner and the house republicans. >> in refusing to defend it. >> the courts didn't decide the california prop 8, they said
12:59 am
there's no way to appeal it. there was no presidential appeal there, the court says clearly, thanks to the republican members of congress who decided to wade in and defend the defense of marriage act. the court was then able to write an opinion. john boehner gets a little bit today. >> house republican caucus. >> i would pay for that opinion. >> i want to add by looking at the question the other way, which is to say a second generation world, who is going to use the word race, who is going to use the word african-american, who is going to use the word latino. her answer is, the people who are trying to help subordinate a minority. they have race on their faith and they get struck down and are vulnerable in the court. that's a way of fitting all the cases together. the race cases on one hand and the gay cases on the other. two different generations --
1:00 am
>> don't give them too much credit. four of them were as unwilling to help gay and lesbians. >> yes. for one reason i'm grateful for it, it was consistent. justice kennedy voted with us on the colorado case, in the -- >> affirmative action, other things have -- >> former congressman barney frank. joy reid and kenji yoshino. the rachel maddow show starts right now. it's a good day to have a television show. >> you talking to barney frank and asking about the arc of bill clinton. >> i had totally forgotten that. it's amazing. >> thank you, chris, great show tonight. thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. this law he said, tells same sex couples in all the world that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. this places same sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second tier marriage.