Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live At Daybreak
Coffey Talk: Gay Marriage Ruling
Aired February 05, 2004 - 06:42 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.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: It is sure to be a major campaign issue, thanks in large part to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. It ruled that gays are entitled constitutionally to nothing less than marriage. Civil unions do not suffice.
Time for some 'Coffey Talk.' Kendall Coffey joining us live from Miami.
Thanks for being with us this morning on this very contentious issue -- Kendall.
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, good morning -- Carol.
COSTELLO: We've gotten a lot of e-mails from people on legal questions, and I'm going to read some of them to you. This one says "the courts have no right to change the definition of marriage." This is from the Williams family in St. Paul, Minnesota. Do the courts have a right to change the definition and is that what the court in Massachusetts did?
COFFEY: Well certainly the courts will say they are not changing the definition of marriage. What they are doing is telling you in Massachusetts what it means to be truly equal and to create a separate but equal status. For example, civil unions for gay couples, marriage for traditional couples is really the very vice of stigmatizing and creating a second-class citizenship that, at least from the Massachusetts Supreme Court standpoint, is wrong. So it's not about redefining marriage. It's about, according to Massachusetts Supreme Court, validating human and equal rights.
COSTELLO: So in the Massachusetts Constitution, there is really no definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman?
COFFEY: And -- but ultimately what their court is saying is that we don't have to be guided by the U.S. Constitution. In Massachusetts we have our own state Constitution. It stands on its own vitality. And that may give greater rights to gay couples in Massachusetts than they have under the U.S. Constitution. As the state Supreme Court, they make the call on what their own state constitution means. And that in legal terms is what has happened here. And it also means, Carol, that it probably could not be revised, reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court since it is a decision by a state court about state law.
COSTELLO: OK. Just to clarify further, this is from Gary (ph), and he writes "where is the division between state and federal law when it comes to marriage and the current laws on the books in different states?" I mean if there is a federal amendment to the Constitution, does that trump states' constitutions?
COFFEY: Well certainly a federal constitutional amendment could be drafted and crafted to trump what states do. But for now the status is that you have a federal Defense of Marriage Act, you have 38 states that have counterparts that is Defense of Marriage Acts. And what they mean is not that Massachusetts can't confer marital status upon same sex couples. But if a couple married in Massachusetts same sex goes to another state, such as Florida, for example, which has a Defense of Marriage Act, then Florida does not have to give any recognition to the marriage of that same sex couple that was married in Massachusetts.
COSTELLO: OK, a lot of e-mails that we have received this morning mention religion. I'm going to read you this one. "No Pledge of Allegiance in school, no commandments in a courthouse, where does it stop? Even marriage is now within their realm. Where is the separation of church and state now?" But doesn't the separation of church and state enter into this?
COFFEY: Well, not from the standpoint in legal terms, because marriage is conferred by the state. It is not conceived as a religious institution. This court made it very clear that they are not attempting in any way to define what people's beliefs or morals or religious principles should be with respect to this very deeply emotionally held subject.
What they are simply saying is under the law all people must be recognized as equal under the law whatever may be one's religious views. And to give full validation to that, they cannot create a second-class citizenship for same sex couples.
COSTELLO: Of course one way the law can be changed in Massachusetts is if their state legislature adds an amendment to their constitution. That is being considered. So this is from Jim in Dallas, Texas. He says "let's say we buy the cake, rent the hall, get the license and pay the preacher this June in Massachusetts. Can some new law or constitutional amendment revoke the license or will all of those who get married prior to that still be legally married?"
COFFEY: I don't believe so. I think that those couples who marry within this window. Let's say that the legislature and the state of Massachusetts changes its own state constitution by year 2006. Still going to be a window. And I would believe that anyone who is married legally under state law within that window of marital opportunity for same sex couples can not have that taken away from them. That would then be a vested liberty interest, which can't be removed by the legislature.
But still, that may only give them rights that apply within Massachusetts and perhaps a limited number of other states, because, as we know, the federal government in 38 states are very firm in their Defense of Marriage positions.
COSTELLO: All right. Kendall Coffey live from Miami. Thank you for filling us in. It's an interesting and controversial topic, and we'll be talking about it for a long time. COFFEY: Sure is. Thanks.
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 February 5, 2004 - 06:42 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: It is sure to be a major campaign issue, thanks in large part to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. It ruled that gays are entitled constitutionally to nothing less than marriage. Civil unions do not suffice.
Time for some 'Coffey Talk.' Kendall Coffey joining us live from Miami.
Thanks for being with us this morning on this very contentious issue -- Kendall.
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, good morning -- Carol.
COSTELLO: We've gotten a lot of e-mails from people on legal questions, and I'm going to read some of them to you. This one says "the courts have no right to change the definition of marriage." This is from the Williams family in St. Paul, Minnesota. Do the courts have a right to change the definition and is that what the court in Massachusetts did?
COFFEY: Well certainly the courts will say they are not changing the definition of marriage. What they are doing is telling you in Massachusetts what it means to be truly equal and to create a separate but equal status. For example, civil unions for gay couples, marriage for traditional couples is really the very vice of stigmatizing and creating a second-class citizenship that, at least from the Massachusetts Supreme Court standpoint, is wrong. So it's not about redefining marriage. It's about, according to Massachusetts Supreme Court, validating human and equal rights.
COSTELLO: So in the Massachusetts Constitution, there is really no definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman?
COFFEY: And -- but ultimately what their court is saying is that we don't have to be guided by the U.S. Constitution. In Massachusetts we have our own state Constitution. It stands on its own vitality. And that may give greater rights to gay couples in Massachusetts than they have under the U.S. Constitution. As the state Supreme Court, they make the call on what their own state constitution means. And that in legal terms is what has happened here. And it also means, Carol, that it probably could not be revised, reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court since it is a decision by a state court about state law.
COSTELLO: OK. Just to clarify further, this is from Gary (ph), and he writes "where is the division between state and federal law when it comes to marriage and the current laws on the books in different states?" I mean if there is a federal amendment to the Constitution, does that trump states' constitutions?
COFFEY: Well certainly a federal constitutional amendment could be drafted and crafted to trump what states do. But for now the status is that you have a federal Defense of Marriage Act, you have 38 states that have counterparts that is Defense of Marriage Acts. And what they mean is not that Massachusetts can't confer marital status upon same sex couples. But if a couple married in Massachusetts same sex goes to another state, such as Florida, for example, which has a Defense of Marriage Act, then Florida does not have to give any recognition to the marriage of that same sex couple that was married in Massachusetts.
COSTELLO: OK, a lot of e-mails that we have received this morning mention religion. I'm going to read you this one. "No Pledge of Allegiance in school, no commandments in a courthouse, where does it stop? Even marriage is now within their realm. Where is the separation of church and state now?" But doesn't the separation of church and state enter into this?
COFFEY: Well, not from the standpoint in legal terms, because marriage is conferred by the state. It is not conceived as a religious institution. This court made it very clear that they are not attempting in any way to define what people's beliefs or morals or religious principles should be with respect to this very deeply emotionally held subject.
What they are simply saying is under the law all people must be recognized as equal under the law whatever may be one's religious views. And to give full validation to that, they cannot create a second-class citizenship for same sex couples.
COSTELLO: Of course one way the law can be changed in Massachusetts is if their state legislature adds an amendment to their constitution. That is being considered. So this is from Jim in Dallas, Texas. He says "let's say we buy the cake, rent the hall, get the license and pay the preacher this June in Massachusetts. Can some new law or constitutional amendment revoke the license or will all of those who get married prior to that still be legally married?"
COFFEY: I don't believe so. I think that those couples who marry within this window. Let's say that the legislature and the state of Massachusetts changes its own state constitution by year 2006. Still going to be a window. And I would believe that anyone who is married legally under state law within that window of marital opportunity for same sex couples can not have that taken away from them. That would then be a vested liberty interest, which can't be removed by the legislature.
But still, that may only give them rights that apply within Massachusetts and perhaps a limited number of other states, because, as we know, the federal government in 38 states are very firm in their Defense of Marriage positions.
COSTELLO: All right. Kendall Coffey live from Miami. Thank you for filling us in. It's an interesting and controversial topic, and we'll be talking about it for a long time. COFFEY: Sure is. Thanks.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
