Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Marriage Proposal
Aired January 15, 2004 - 10:25 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Another type of initiative in the news now, the White House reportedly has been working with conservatives on a strategy to shore up traditional marriage, following a Massachusetts supreme court ruling affirming same-sex marriages. The proposal apparently would provide training and counseling to young couples with the goal of building what they call healthy marriages. The president could make his pitch during the State of the Union speech.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Lisalyn Jacobs of NOW's legal defense and education fund are with us here today to talk about this marriage proposal.
Thank you for being with us, to both of you.
We're talking about $1.5 billion in order to shore up healthy marriages. Lisalyn, we're going to start with you. It's kind of hard to come out against healthy marriages.
LISALYN JACOBS, NOW'S LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND: Absolutely. My organization favors marriage. The question is, whether or not the federal government has a role. We are looking at an economy where two million jobs have been lost -- $1.5 billion would be fabulous in terms of welfare programming, getting women jobs, getting women training and education and the child care they need to be self-supporting and then make their own decisions about marriage.
KAGAN: Tony, I want to bring you in here. As I said, it's kind of hard to be against healthy marriages. But is this proposal enough, or would conservatives really like to see a march even further in coming out and supporting the ban, a constitutional amendment, that would ban gay marriage?
TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: I think it's a two- pronged approach. I think obviously marriage needs to be promoted, and this is actually $1 billion of federal money. It's a half a billion of state money. Part of it will be matched in the way of matches.
But also marriage is in need of protection. And so yes, we would like to see the president continue. This actually has been probably two years in the works. This is a part of the welfare reform package, reauthorization, and it's good. It's about encouraging couples, if they seek marriage, to equip themselves and to be successful.
I mean, we look at the effects. We spend about $1,000 for every $1,000 we spend pick up for the effects of broken homes, we spend only $1 in prevention, and so we're just putting a little bit more money on the front end to help couples equip themselves for marriage and have successful marriages.
HEMMER: And what does it need to be protected against, Tony? It's one thing to want to be married, but why do you want the federal government inside your home?
PERKINS: Well, public policy over the last 30 years has discouraged marriage through a number of ways, no-fault divorce a prime example. And what we've seen as a result, we've seen more children growing up in single-parent homes.
HEMMER: So you would like to see no-fault divorce go away?
PERKINS: No, we've had other policies. As a legislator in Louisiana for eight years, I was the first to introduce covenant marriage, which it didn't force anything on anybody; it simply said, you know, we would encourage to you obtain premarital counseling and then to work through your marriage if you have difficulties during the course of it. So it's not heavy-handed as they did when they passed no-fault divorce, imposing that on everybody. This is simply providing people options. Those that do not have the financial resources to seek counseling, there would be programs to this where they could do that, and they could work through their problems, and it's more beneficial for the children. I mean, the social science literature is replete with robust findings that says that the breakup of the home has tremendous harmful effects, especially upon children.
HEMMER: Let me go ahead and get Lisalyn in here. Are you concerned -- again, it's hard to be against something that's being given to somebody, giving people resources to make their home life better. Are you concerned, though, that this the money might come from other pots and pools where it might go places you'd prefer to see it go?
JACOBS: Absolutely. The point to make here is that the administration concedes that they don't know whether or not the programs work. So the fact of the matter is that what we are looking at is $1.5 billion of experiment ion on poor people. Certainly, we'd like to see people in good and healthy relationships, but, a, that's a private matter; b, we have concerns about the incidents of domestic violence among women who are recipients of TANUF (ph). So we'd like to see the situation where that money went to education and training for these women, to child care, so that they could hold jobs and not be worried about where there kids are, and allow them to achieve economic stability, and then make their own decisions about marriage, because the government has no role in marriage.
I've got colleagues from the CATO (ph) Institute and I've read "The National Review." They both say, if the federal government gets involved in marriage, we're done, we're over. Michael Tanner of the Kato (ph) Institute has said, if the government's getting involved in my marriage, I expect it to only last for about another year and a half.
KAGAN: Let me just ask you one more thing quickly, not asking what your specific view is on this. But do each of you think, ultimately, this is headed toward a showdown about what America thinks about gay marriage? Is that where this is going?
PERKINS: I think that these are two separate proposals. One is to promote the institution of marriage, and the protection of marriage to a constitutional amendment is yet another part of the equation.
KAGAN: And then, Lisalyn, what do you think?
JACOBS: I suspect that that is the case, sadly. The Supreme Court spoke in the Lawrence (ph) case, the Massachusetts supreme court has spoken, and I think that we need to respect the rulings of both of those courts, but this administration and it's more conservative backers are very concerned about imposing their agenda and their morals on the rest of us.
KAGAN: And that will be the last word. Nowhere is anybody more passionate than when it comes to what happens inside their own homes.
Thank you to both of you. Tony Perkins and Lisalyn Jacobs, appreciate the conversation today.
JACOBS: Thank you, Daryn.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired January 15, 2004 - 10:25 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Another type of initiative in the news now, the White House reportedly has been working with conservatives on a strategy to shore up traditional marriage, following a Massachusetts supreme court ruling affirming same-sex marriages. The proposal apparently would provide training and counseling to young couples with the goal of building what they call healthy marriages. The president could make his pitch during the State of the Union speech.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Lisalyn Jacobs of NOW's legal defense and education fund are with us here today to talk about this marriage proposal.
Thank you for being with us, to both of you.
We're talking about $1.5 billion in order to shore up healthy marriages. Lisalyn, we're going to start with you. It's kind of hard to come out against healthy marriages.
LISALYN JACOBS, NOW'S LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND: Absolutely. My organization favors marriage. The question is, whether or not the federal government has a role. We are looking at an economy where two million jobs have been lost -- $1.5 billion would be fabulous in terms of welfare programming, getting women jobs, getting women training and education and the child care they need to be self-supporting and then make their own decisions about marriage.
KAGAN: Tony, I want to bring you in here. As I said, it's kind of hard to be against healthy marriages. But is this proposal enough, or would conservatives really like to see a march even further in coming out and supporting the ban, a constitutional amendment, that would ban gay marriage?
TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: I think it's a two- pronged approach. I think obviously marriage needs to be promoted, and this is actually $1 billion of federal money. It's a half a billion of state money. Part of it will be matched in the way of matches.
But also marriage is in need of protection. And so yes, we would like to see the president continue. This actually has been probably two years in the works. This is a part of the welfare reform package, reauthorization, and it's good. It's about encouraging couples, if they seek marriage, to equip themselves and to be successful.
I mean, we look at the effects. We spend about $1,000 for every $1,000 we spend pick up for the effects of broken homes, we spend only $1 in prevention, and so we're just putting a little bit more money on the front end to help couples equip themselves for marriage and have successful marriages.
HEMMER: And what does it need to be protected against, Tony? It's one thing to want to be married, but why do you want the federal government inside your home?
PERKINS: Well, public policy over the last 30 years has discouraged marriage through a number of ways, no-fault divorce a prime example. And what we've seen as a result, we've seen more children growing up in single-parent homes.
HEMMER: So you would like to see no-fault divorce go away?
PERKINS: No, we've had other policies. As a legislator in Louisiana for eight years, I was the first to introduce covenant marriage, which it didn't force anything on anybody; it simply said, you know, we would encourage to you obtain premarital counseling and then to work through your marriage if you have difficulties during the course of it. So it's not heavy-handed as they did when they passed no-fault divorce, imposing that on everybody. This is simply providing people options. Those that do not have the financial resources to seek counseling, there would be programs to this where they could do that, and they could work through their problems, and it's more beneficial for the children. I mean, the social science literature is replete with robust findings that says that the breakup of the home has tremendous harmful effects, especially upon children.
HEMMER: Let me go ahead and get Lisalyn in here. Are you concerned -- again, it's hard to be against something that's being given to somebody, giving people resources to make their home life better. Are you concerned, though, that this the money might come from other pots and pools where it might go places you'd prefer to see it go?
JACOBS: Absolutely. The point to make here is that the administration concedes that they don't know whether or not the programs work. So the fact of the matter is that what we are looking at is $1.5 billion of experiment ion on poor people. Certainly, we'd like to see people in good and healthy relationships, but, a, that's a private matter; b, we have concerns about the incidents of domestic violence among women who are recipients of TANUF (ph). So we'd like to see the situation where that money went to education and training for these women, to child care, so that they could hold jobs and not be worried about where there kids are, and allow them to achieve economic stability, and then make their own decisions about marriage, because the government has no role in marriage.
I've got colleagues from the CATO (ph) Institute and I've read "The National Review." They both say, if the federal government gets involved in marriage, we're done, we're over. Michael Tanner of the Kato (ph) Institute has said, if the government's getting involved in my marriage, I expect it to only last for about another year and a half.
KAGAN: Let me just ask you one more thing quickly, not asking what your specific view is on this. But do each of you think, ultimately, this is headed toward a showdown about what America thinks about gay marriage? Is that where this is going?
PERKINS: I think that these are two separate proposals. One is to promote the institution of marriage, and the protection of marriage to a constitutional amendment is yet another part of the equation.
KAGAN: And then, Lisalyn, what do you think?
JACOBS: I suspect that that is the case, sadly. The Supreme Court spoke in the Lawrence (ph) case, the Massachusetts supreme court has spoken, and I think that we need to respect the rulings of both of those courts, but this administration and it's more conservative backers are very concerned about imposing their agenda and their morals on the rest of us.
KAGAN: And that will be the last word. Nowhere is anybody more passionate than when it comes to what happens inside their own homes.
Thank you to both of you. Tony Perkins and Lisalyn Jacobs, appreciate the conversation today.
JACOBS: Thank you, Daryn.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
