Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live At Daybreak
Coffey Talk: Same-Sex Marriage
Aired February 17, 2004 - 06:40 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: Gay couples are still lining up in San Francisco to say I do, but it may not last much longer. The battle now moves into the courtroom where an arsenal of legal arguments will play to a national audience.
Time for some 'Coffey Talk.' Live to Miami and our legal analyst Kendall Coffey.
Good morning -- Kendall.
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, good morning -- Carol.
COSTELLO: So will this be a slam-dunk for those against gay marriage?
COFFEY: Well it's going to be tough for the mayor of San Francisco's position to be sustained to the extent that he is basically ignoring the state laws of California. But his position is that while he is ignoring the state laws, he is following the state constitution of California's Equal Protection Clause. Essentially saying that the decision the state of Massachusetts by its state supreme court should be followed into California. If for some reason he could win on that argument, the marriages would continue.
COSTELLO: Well it's interesting, you say the definition, and we solicited e-mails so our viewers could ask you some questions. This one from Jim from Illinois, "without hard definitions, people can't agree on anything because everyone would have a different interpretation of what's being said." And specifically I think he is referring to Proposition 22, which specifically states that marriage in California is between a man and a woman. But you are saying that doesn't trump the equal protection under the law part?
COFFEY: That's the basic position that the mayor has taken. And even if you are not a judge, you are supposed to follow the ultimate source of law, which is the constitution. So his view is -- I don't agree that he is a renegade. If he sincerely believes that this is what the constitution requires that there be no second-class form of marriage such as domestic partnership, then he is -- he is acting out of conscience. But once a judge rules and the court system has its say, that obviously is going to have to be followed.
COSTELLO: So how will this discrepancy be resolved if the judge decides that there is a discrepancy?
COFFEY: Well the judge could very well simply shut it down and say that until the state supreme court of California rules that gay marriage is clearly not permitted under the statutes under Proposition 22 in the state constitution, and that, Carol, would, by the way, throw into a fascinating legal dilemma the status of those marriages and those marriage licenses which were issued during the window between the time the mayor issued his letter and the time of the judge's ruling.
COSTELLO: Boy! OK, there seems to be a lot of -- there are a lot of questions like this. Civil unions, "Vermont is the only state in the union that allows civil unions. I don't think people understand what the difference is between marriage and civil union." This question from Gary (ph).
COFFEY: That's a great question, because when you break it down in terms of the immediate legal consequences, hard to find a difference. What the difference really centers on is the "M" word. There is so much symbolic, moral, spiritual, emotional commitment to the word marriage that that really defines not a tangible distinction but an intangible distinction. What they said in Massachusetts is whether it's more symbolic than not, the difference is such that to deny marriage to same-sex couples means that they are getting separate and unequal and thus unconstitutional treatment under the law.
COSTELLO: Kendall, I see your earpiece coming out, do you want to put that back in so you can hear me better?
COFFEY: You are the kindest person in all of television.
COSTELLO: I try my best.
I want to read this e-mail to you just because so many people have shown up in San Francisco to get married as a protest to the laws on the books right now. This is from Tony C. (ph). He says "a woman had to fight for her rights and she is not going back to the sink. African-Americans fought to sit at the front of the bus and they are not moving to the back. Well I am out of my closet and I am not going back." Will there continue to be large protests about these issues no matter what the judges decide in each state or whether constitutions are amended?
COFFEY: There is, of course, going to be tremendous activism on this issue on both sides. In many ways the issue of the rights of same-sex couples is really the cutting edge, the frontier issue and all of the domain of civil rights in America today.
COSTELLO: And we'll need you much longer in order to explain it all to us.
Kendall Coffey, live from Miami, many thanks to you.
COFFEY: Thanks, Carol.
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 17, 2004 - 06:40 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Gay couples are still lining up in San Francisco to say I do, but it may not last much longer. The battle now moves into the courtroom where an arsenal of legal arguments will play to a national audience.
Time for some 'Coffey Talk.' Live to Miami and our legal analyst Kendall Coffey.
Good morning -- Kendall.
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, good morning -- Carol.
COSTELLO: So will this be a slam-dunk for those against gay marriage?
COFFEY: Well it's going to be tough for the mayor of San Francisco's position to be sustained to the extent that he is basically ignoring the state laws of California. But his position is that while he is ignoring the state laws, he is following the state constitution of California's Equal Protection Clause. Essentially saying that the decision the state of Massachusetts by its state supreme court should be followed into California. If for some reason he could win on that argument, the marriages would continue.
COSTELLO: Well it's interesting, you say the definition, and we solicited e-mails so our viewers could ask you some questions. This one from Jim from Illinois, "without hard definitions, people can't agree on anything because everyone would have a different interpretation of what's being said." And specifically I think he is referring to Proposition 22, which specifically states that marriage in California is between a man and a woman. But you are saying that doesn't trump the equal protection under the law part?
COFFEY: That's the basic position that the mayor has taken. And even if you are not a judge, you are supposed to follow the ultimate source of law, which is the constitution. So his view is -- I don't agree that he is a renegade. If he sincerely believes that this is what the constitution requires that there be no second-class form of marriage such as domestic partnership, then he is -- he is acting out of conscience. But once a judge rules and the court system has its say, that obviously is going to have to be followed.
COSTELLO: So how will this discrepancy be resolved if the judge decides that there is a discrepancy?
COFFEY: Well the judge could very well simply shut it down and say that until the state supreme court of California rules that gay marriage is clearly not permitted under the statutes under Proposition 22 in the state constitution, and that, Carol, would, by the way, throw into a fascinating legal dilemma the status of those marriages and those marriage licenses which were issued during the window between the time the mayor issued his letter and the time of the judge's ruling.
COSTELLO: Boy! OK, there seems to be a lot of -- there are a lot of questions like this. Civil unions, "Vermont is the only state in the union that allows civil unions. I don't think people understand what the difference is between marriage and civil union." This question from Gary (ph).
COFFEY: That's a great question, because when you break it down in terms of the immediate legal consequences, hard to find a difference. What the difference really centers on is the "M" word. There is so much symbolic, moral, spiritual, emotional commitment to the word marriage that that really defines not a tangible distinction but an intangible distinction. What they said in Massachusetts is whether it's more symbolic than not, the difference is such that to deny marriage to same-sex couples means that they are getting separate and unequal and thus unconstitutional treatment under the law.
COSTELLO: Kendall, I see your earpiece coming out, do you want to put that back in so you can hear me better?
COFFEY: You are the kindest person in all of television.
COSTELLO: I try my best.
I want to read this e-mail to you just because so many people have shown up in San Francisco to get married as a protest to the laws on the books right now. This is from Tony C. (ph). He says "a woman had to fight for her rights and she is not going back to the sink. African-Americans fought to sit at the front of the bus and they are not moving to the back. Well I am out of my closet and I am not going back." Will there continue to be large protests about these issues no matter what the judges decide in each state or whether constitutions are amended?
COFFEY: There is, of course, going to be tremendous activism on this issue on both sides. In many ways the issue of the rights of same-sex couples is really the cutting edge, the frontier issue and all of the domain of civil rights in America today.
COSTELLO: And we'll need you much longer in order to explain it all to us.
Kendall Coffey, live from Miami, many thanks to you.
COFFEY: Thanks, Carol.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
