"Supreme Court reviews Trump effort to change census data on immigrants" PBS NewsHour 11/30/2020
Excerpt
SUMMARY: President Trump’s immigration policies and the U.S. census were back at the Supreme Court on Monday. As John Yang reports, the issues at stake in the case have the potential of shaping congressional and presidential politics for years to come.
SUMMARY: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, a position she held for 27 years. Marcia Coyle, Chief Washington Correspondent for The National Law Journal and Amy Howe, Co-Founder of SCOTUSblog joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss Justice Ginsburg’s long storied career and her fight for equal rights.
"‘She really didn’t give up’: Remembering the life and career of RBG" PBS NewsHour 09/19/2020 Excerpt
SUMMARY: Nina Totenberg, NPR’s correspondent for legal affairs, first met Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg over the phone nearly 50 years ago, beginning a professional relationship, which eventually morphed into a close friendship. In a conversation with Hari Sreenivasan, Totenberg shares anecdotes about their bond and what she learned about life, law and even death from Justice Ginsburg.
"Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be immortalized with statue in Brooklyn, NYC" PBS NewsHour 09/19/2020 Excerpt
SUMMARY: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy began in Flatbush, Brooklyn in New York where she was born and raised. On Saturday, New York Gov. Cuomo announced that a statue honoring her contribution will be built in the NYC borough. NewsHour Weekend Correspondent Ivette Feliciano joins Hari Sreenivasan from outside Ginsburg’s childhood home.
The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States, a historic culmination of decades of litigation over gay marriage and gay rights generally.
Gay and lesbian couples already could marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.
Gay rights supporters cheered, danced and wept outside the court after the decision, which put an exclamation point on breathtaking changes in the nation’s social norms.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court’s previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions.
“No union is more profound than marriage,” Kennedy wrote, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices. The stories of the people asking for the right to marry “reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory, joined by its bond,” Kennedy said.
As he read his opinion, spectators in the courtroom wiped away tears after the import of the decision became clear. One of those in the audience was James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court fight.
Outside, Obergefell held up a photo of his late spouse, John, and said the ruling establishes that “our love is equal.” He added, “This is for you, John.”
President Barack Obama placed a congratulatory phone call to Obergefell, which he took amid a throng of reporters outside the courthouse.
Speaking a few minutes later at the White House, Obama praised the decision as “justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.” He said it was an affirmation of the principle that “all Americans are created equal.”
The four dissenting justices each filed a separate opinion explaining his views, but they all agreed that states and their voters should have been left with the power to decide who can marry.
“This court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent. Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice.
“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” Roberts said. “But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
Justice Antonin Scalia said he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage but about “this court’s threat to American democracy.” Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented. President Barack Obama welcomed the decision via Twitter, calling it “a big step in our march toward equality.”
The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere.
Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor formed the majority with Kennedy on Friday, the same lineup as two years ago.
The earlier decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.
The number of states allowing same-sex marriage has grown rapidly. As recently as last October, just over one-third of the states permitted it.
There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA’s Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.
The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department’s decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights, and Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.
The states affected by Friday’s ruling are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, most of Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
SUMMARY: In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the country, thus legalizing marriage for all gay couples in the United States. Political director Lisa Desjardins reports from the steps of the high court, then Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal joins Hari Sreenivasan to take a deeper look at the ruling.
SUMMARY: For reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing gay marriage across the country, Jeffrey Brown talks to Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church, Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, Sarah Warbelow of Human Rights Campaign and Tevin Johnson-Campion, son of two of the plaintiffs in court today.
SUMMARY: Today the Supreme Court tackled a highly anticipated and historic case that could set the definition of marriage in the U.S. The justices heard arguments on whether all states must allow same-sex marriage, and if not, whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what happened in court.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): It was a historic day at the Supreme Court, at stake, the definition of marriage.
Justices split the issue into two questions: Must every state permit same-sex marriage? And, if not, do states have to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere?
Protesters from both sides of the debate crowded outside the court building in Washington this morning.
Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal was there and she joins us now.
MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: Hi, Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Marcia, big day at the court. Knowing that, what is it, 36 of the states…
MARCIA COYLE: Plus the District of Columbia.
JUDY WOODRUFF: … already declare same-sex marriage legal, what were the petitioners today asking the court to decide?
MARCIA COYLE: Well, basically, they’re laying claim to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law.
They’re saying that the court has recognized that there is a fundamental right to marry, and under the 14th Amendment, they have been — they deserve to be part and to participate in that fundamental right.
The states that still do ban same-sex marriage, they claim, are excluding them from that fundamental right to marry. It was a packed courtroom, Judy, and the arguments were fast-paced and intense. And I hope anybody who is interested will listen to the full audio and read the transcript.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): And it’s been 50 years since Freedom Summer galvanized the civil rights movement, registering voters in Mississippi and urging them to the polls.
But the young volunteers focused on the children as well, creating Freedom Schools that still exist in another form today.
Gwen reports for our American Graduate series. It’s a public media initiative funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): Marian Wright Edelman was a young lawyer when she headed south half-a-century ago determined to change the world.
Were you breeding young activists?
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN, Children’s Defense Fund: Absolutely.
And this — when you begin to teach people about the importance of reading — and Frederick Douglass talked about the importance of literacy to anything. Once you know how to read, it’s very hard to make you a slave.
And, secondly, once you learn about your history, and learn to question, rather than just to accept, you create a new child.
SUMMARY: The World Economic Forum published a report recently that says the United States finishes far from the top of a list when it comes to gender equality. American women finished 23rd on the list of 136 countries. Kathleen Gerson, a Sociology professor at New York University sheds light on the findings.
HARI SREENIVASAN (Newshour): The World Economic Forum published a report recently that says the United States finishes far from the top of a list when it comes to gender equality. According to the reports, women fared based in Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden. American women finished 23rd on the list of 136 countries. For more perspective earlier I spoke with Kathleen Gerson. She is a Sociology professor at New York University and the author of a book about gender and family titled 'The Unfinished Revolution.'
----
HARI SREENIVASAN: In educational attainment we are tied for first with about 24 other countries but when it comes to the specific measure of healthy life expectancy we are fifty-third. And that’s much lower than one would think living in the US.
KATHLEEN GERSON: It’s very counterintuitive since we talk all the time about our high life expectancies especially for women. But I think that that the lesson here is we are quite obviously one of the few, the only industrial wealthy country in the world that doesn’t have a national health system, and I think that is showing up in these statistics. That we like to think of ourselves as being one of the healthiest countries on earth but in fact when you put it all together, people at the top may be doing well but we’re not as a country doing that well compared to other societies.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Another one of the categories that they measure is economic participation and opportunity, we ranked sixth overall because we do have leadership positions that are filled by women but we ranked sixty-seventh when it came to wage inequality (misspeak? wage equality?), and that’s a conversation that has been happening in the US for a long time.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Michigan voters can pass a law that prohibits racial preference in college admissions. Gwen Ifill gets background from Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal, plus views from Lee Bollinger of Columbia University and Joshua Thompson, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
GWEN IFILL (Newshour): The debate over affirmative action returned to the Supreme Court today, this time in the form of a challenge to a Michigan law that would ban its use at public universities.
We begin our coverage with NewsHour regular Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal, who of course was in the courtroom today, as always, Marcia.
JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Now we wrap up our coverage of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.
First, longtime civil rights activist Linda Chapin of Orlando, Fla., recalls coming to the Capitol as a 22-year-old.
LINDA CHAPIN, civil rights activist: It was, as much as anything -- for my group of friends who met up in Washington the day before, it was exciting. It was passionate. It was fun, all of those things.
(LAUGHTER)
LINDA CHAPIN: And we didn't know that it would come together to be one of the largest protests in the history of the United States.
And another thing that interests me greatly is that the organizers didn't all have the same goal. Some of them were there to support President Kennedy's Civil Rights Act. Some of them were going there to say, no, we don't support that; it's not strong enough. Some of them were there to say something different.
And, yet, it all came together in this incredibly symbolic and historic event.
JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): That was Linda Chapin of Orlando, Fla. You can find her story and other firsthand accounts at Memories of the March on the PBS Web site Black Culture Connection.
And now Gwen Ifill has the final installment of her series of conversations on the march.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, entitling same-sex couples to federal benefits. They also ruled that defenders of California's gay marriage ban did not have the right to appeal lower rulings striking down Proposition 8. Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal joins Gwen Ifill.
SUMMARY: What are the legal implications of the Supreme Court's decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8? Jeffrey Brown gets two views on the impact of the court's rulings from Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Mary Bonauto of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.
RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): A new survey provides one of the largest and most complex portraits of what life is like today for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. The sweeping survey conducted by the Pew Research Center spanned topics including political views, social stigmas and the difficulties of coming out.
It finds growing acceptance in the U.S. of the LGBT community; 92 percent of those surveyed said they agreed with that. Yet 53 percent of gay Americans say there is still discrimination. The survey was done just weeks before the Supreme Court decision and was released during Pride Month.
A short time ago, President Obama spoke at a Pride Month event at the White House about those changing attitudes.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: From Minnesota to Maryland, from the United States Senate to the NBA, it's clear we're reaching a turning point.
We have -- we have become not just more accepting. We have become more loving as a country and as a people. Heart and minds change with time. Laws do, too.
Change like that isn't something that starts here in Washington, but it's something that has the power that Washington has a great deal of difficulty resisting over time.
RAY SUAREZ: For more on all this, we turn to Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and co-author of the LGBT survey, and Gary Gates, distinguished scholar at the Williams center at UCLA and co-author of the "Gay and Lesbian Atlas."
SUMMARY: In San Francisco, city employees are preparing for a rush of same-sex marriage applications in case the Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 8, which banned marriage for anyone except between a man and a woman. Spencer Michels looks at the history of California's fight on same-sex marriage and previews the court's decision.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court took up whether same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. Kwame Holman offers history on the Defense of Marriage Act and reactions from outside the court. Ray Suarez talks to National Law Journal's Marcia Coyle, who helps compare proceedings on both same-sex marriage cases.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, a ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage. Kwame Holman reports on reactions from supporters on both sides of the debate. Judy Woodruff talks to Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal, who analyzes the arguments inside the courtroom.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.
THEODORE OLSON, Former U.S. Solicitor General: The label marriage means something. Even our opponents ...
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Sure.
If you tell -- if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend. But it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that is, it seems to me, what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're taking -- all you're interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.
He had just flown across the country after an exhausting campaign day in Oregon and South Dakota, landing at the White House after dark. But President Bill Clinton still had more business before bed. He picked up a pen and scrawled out his name, turning a bill into law.
It was 10 minutes before 1 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 21, 1996, and there were no cameras, no ceremony. The witching-hour timing bespoke both political calculation and personal angst. With his signature, federal law now defined marriage as the union of a man and woman. Mr. Clinton considered it a gay-baiting measure, but was unwilling to risk re-election by vetoing it.
For nearly 17 years since, that middle-of-the-night moment has haunted Mr. Clinton, the source of tension with friends, advisers and gay rights supporters. He tried to explain, defend and justify. He asked for understanding. Then he inched away from it bit by bit. Finally this month, he disavowed the Defense of Marriage Act entirely, urging that the law be overturned by the Supreme Court, which takes up the matter on Wednesday on the second of two days of arguments devoted to same-sex marriage issues.
Rarely has a former president declared that an action he took in office violated the Constitution. But Mr. Clinton’s journey from signing the Defense of Marriage Act to repudiating it mirrors larger changes in society as same-sex marriage has gone from a fringe idea to one with a majority.
“President Clinton has evolved on this issue just like every American has evolved,” said Chad Griffin, who worked as a junior press aide in Mr. Clinton’s White House and now heads the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most prominent gay rights organization.
Not every American has evolved in the same way Mr. Clinton has. A sizable proportion of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage, and to them Mr. Clinton’s turnabout is a betrayal of sorts. But neither supporters nor opponents find it entirely surprising since both sides assumed the former president had actually signed the bill out of politics rather than principle.
In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.
On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.
Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.
When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.
We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo, even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.
Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we all do better?’?”
The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor, and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.
Organizers for this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, as they've done in the past, made a deliberate decision to prohibit Republican groups advocating gay rights from participating in the event. On the main stage, attendees saw notable GOP leaders like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proclaim that his desire to discriminate against LGBT Americans does not make him a "bigot."
But away from the speakers and organizers, it was clear to many that the marriage debate is effectively over, the right has lost, and even CPAC activists no longer seem to care.
Consider the results of the new Washington Post/ABC News poll.
I put together this chart (at top) to show the trajectory over the last decade, and the trend line isn't exactly subtle.
But the closer one looks at the results, the more striking they are. Among Americans aged 18 to 29, support for marriage equality is 81%, which reinforces the simple fact that opponents are not only fighting against social progress, they're also fighting a losing battle against a calendar that's indifferent to their culture war.
Indeed, even among white evangelicals protestants, 31% back marriage rights for same-sex couples, which may not sound especially impressive, but that total has more than quadrupled over the last decade.
Also note, history suggests movements on social progress rarely go backwards, and there's nothing to suggest opponents of marriage equality will suddenly reemerge and become the majority again. That trend line in the poll is only going to keep moving in a progressive direction, and there's not much Republicans can do about it.
At this point, the ideal solution for GOP officials would for the Supreme Court to simply rule in favor of same-sex marriage, end the debate, and take the issue out of the hands of politicians altogether.
SUMMARY: A new survey shows a majority of Americans support gay marriage. Support has also grown in the courts and among politicians, including former State Secretary Hillary Clinton and Sen. Rob Portman. Gwen Ifill examines the shift with Michael Dimock of the Pew Research Center and Greg Lewis of Georgia State University.
SUMMARY: A new PBS documentary, "MAKERS: Women Who Make America," looks at the women's movement and the groundbreaking contributions and struggles made by women today. Judy Woodruff interviews activist Gloria Steinem about the film and about the current state of feminism and gender equality.
Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.
The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The Proposition 8 case already has a powerful conservative supporter: Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under Mr. Bush and one of the suit’s two lead lawyers. The amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief is being filed with Mr. Olson’s blessing. It argues, as he does, that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”
Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.
Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Frostiness of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.
Ms. Pryce said Monday: “Like a lot of the country, my views have evolved on this from the first day I set foot in Congress. I think it’s just the right thing, and I think it’s on solid legal footing, too.”
Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, who favored civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during his 2012 presidential bid, also signed. Last week, Mr. Huntsman announced his new position in an article titled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” a sign that the 2016 Republican presidential candidates could be divided on the issue for the first time.
MARGARET WARNER (Newshour): The justices agreed to hear arguments in two cases.
One is California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, adopted by voters as referendum Proposition 8 in 2008. It was challenged on grounds that gay citizens have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals. The justices will also review a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.
That deprives legally married gay couples of federal benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.
Same-sex marriage is legal or will be soon in nine states and the District of Columbia. But 31 other states have amended their constitutions to bar gay unions.
Here with us to explain today's decisions and where they could lead is Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal.
SUMMARY: Gay rights advocates won ballot measures in three states -- Washington State, Maryland, and Maine -- ratifying by popular vote the legalization of same-sex marriage. For opposing views on the new laws, Ray Suarez talks to National Organization for Marriage's Thomas Peters and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders' Lee Swislow.
JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Arizona officials today declared that Democratic House candidate Kyrsten Sinema won her race for the Ninth District, which means she will be the first openly bisexual person to serve in Congress.
Her election follows some strong messages sent last week by voters in favor of gay couples exchanging vows.
Ray Suarez has our look.
RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): For the first time, supporters of same-sex marriage won at the ballot box last week, after more than 30 losses. Washington State, Maryland and Maine became the first states to approve the practice by popular vote.
And, in Minnesota, voters shot down a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
CONNIE KAUPPI, Minnesota: It means everything, all my friends, to my community. You know, I mean, I have faith in Minnesota. I love this state so much.
RAY SUAREZ: Before last Tuesday, marriage for same-sex couples was legal in six states and the District of Columbia, but those measures were passed by lawmakers or imposed by court rulings. Five other states now allow civil unions.
Election Day marked another milestone for gays in politics. Wisconsin Democrats Tammy Baldwin was elected as the first openly lesbian member of the U.S. Senate, although she said that wasn't her main focus.
