Return to Transcripts main page
News from CNN
Same-Sex Marriage: Political Hot Potato
Aired February 18, 2004 - 12:33 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.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: The issue of same-sex marriage is turning into a political hot potato in a number of states, indeed, around the country. Could it impact the presidential race as well? Some thoughts now from our two guests.
In San Francisco, radio talk show host Bernie Ward. And from Dallas, Texas, Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council.
Thanks to both of you for joining us.
First of all, I want you both to listen to what President Bush said about this very sensitive issue only within the past few minutes in the Oval Office at the White House when he was asked to comment on what's happening in San Francisco.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I strongly believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. I'm troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage.
I have watched carefully what's happened in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise. I have consistently stated that if -- support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And obviously these events are influencing my decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Clearly suggesting he could go forward and support some sort of constitutional amendment.
Tony Perkins, what you heard from the president, is that good enough for you?
TONY PERKINS, PRESIDENT FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, I think it is time for the president to step out. I think Massachusetts has unleashed these rebellions across the country where you have in question is the rule of law.
I mean, you have judges in Massachusetts acting like legislators. Now you have a mayor in San Francisco acting like a judge. And I think it is time that, you know, this is put a stop to.
And it's become a national issue. So I think, ultimately, we are going to have to amend the national Constitution to define marriage as it has historically been defined, between a man and a woman.
BLITZER: All right. Bernie, what's wrong with that?
BERNIE WARD, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, first of all, I love the term "activist judges." I assume Tony and the others would have said the same thing when Brown v. Board of Education was passed, et cetera, that these were "activist judges."
I'll guarantee you, nobody in the South thought the Supreme Court should have made that decision. So they would have called them "activist judges." In Massachusetts, in Hawaii, and in Alaska, Tony and his ilk have had a chance to make their case for why the state should be able to discriminate against same-sex couples and they lost in all three states.
And they'll continue to lose anywhere they appear in court because it is very simple. There is no compelling state reason to stop same-sex marriages. And the state has not yet been able to come up with one. In fact, the reason that they're talking about a constitutional amendment is because they can't win in court. And so they've got to go for the first time to the Constitution and amend it to take rights away from people, rather than to protect the rights that are already there.
BLITZER: Tony?
PERKINS: Well, fortunately, we're a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, not the judges. And if you look at the legislative arena, where this should be debated -- it is public policy -- the homosexual activists have lost every time. And so they're trying to circumvent the democratic process and go through the courts and find aberrant executives who want to thumb their nose at the law.
WARD: I agree with you.
PERKINS: And the mayor in San Francisco is acting illegally. He has no right to do what he's doing. And the governor out there, "The Terminator," should terminate lawlessness.
WARD: Well, I agree with you, and that's exactly what Lester Maddox (ph) said and George Wallace and others when the decisions were coming down from the Warren court about civil liberties. And the majority of the people in this country didn't support it then.
Here we have again a situation where the courts are looking and saying, you don't have the right to discriminate. And your side, Tony, has not yet been able to come up with a single answer to that question, except a constitutional amendment, because you can't win in court.
PERKINS: We are winning on the state level as a result of what happened in Massachusetts. We've had over a half-dozen states that have already started the process of constitutional amendments to reinforce their laws because they don't want four unelected judges determining the definition of marriage in their states. It's the people that are speaking out very loud on this. It's the 2.5 percent of the population, the homosexual community, that's gone to the courts, and the people are not listening.
BLITZER: Tony, do you support what they call same-sex civil unions, which is not marriage, but would give partners in these kinds of situations additional legal rights?
PERKINS: You know, Wolf, it is not the benefits and the rights that they're looking for. If that were the case, in Vermont you would have all of the same-sex couples seeking it. In fact, only about 40 percent have adopted into the Vermont civil unions, which provides all the benefits of marriage.
This is about wanting to take over the institution of marriage and redefine it for all of America. And we're not about to let a small percentage of Americans, 2.5 percent, redefine it for the rest of us.
WARD: Well, and that's the argument that was made when 12 percent wanted to redefine the Jim Crow laws. And the reality is that the Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority like you, Tony. The Constitution...
PERKINS: Look, I'm from...
WARD: ... was to guarantee civil rights. And in this case, once the Supreme Court ruled on the sodomy laws in Texas, every one of these constitutional amendments in the states -- here is what's going to happen, Tony, and it's going to drive you nuts.
On May 17, you're going to be able to legally get married in Massachusetts. Those people are then go back to other states, and under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, that's going to have to be honored. They'll go to court, and the courts -- the federal courts will throw out every one of these state constitutional amendments as in violation of the federal Constitution. And for all intents and purposes, this debate will be over.
BLITZER: What about that, Tony?
PERKINS: The debate will just be beginning. That is why a constitutional amendment is needed on the federal level to protect the other 49 states or other 48 states from the rest of America from a couple aberrant states.
BLITZER: But Tony, even if it were going through as quickly as possible, that could take, as you well know, years for some sort of constitutional amendment to go through the process.
PERKINS: No, I don't think it takes that -- I think the biggest hurdle is getting it through Congress. I think ratification through the states is going to be a pretty rapid process. You've already had 39 states already pass Defense of Marriage acts.
WARD: It will take two years to get it passed. And then what are you going to do with all those legal marriages? You're going to turn around and say, now that you were married for two years, you are not married anymore? I would love to see you go to a court and have any court turn around and do that.
PERKINS: I think you're going to see a lot of those tied up in court during that two-year process. So I don't think you're going to see a free flow of same-sex marriages.
BLITZER: All right.
WARD: And we should remind you, Wolf, that when George Bush was asked this question in 2000, both he and Dick Cheney said this should be left up to the states. They said there's absolutely nothing that the government should be doing about this, and each individual state should be left on their own.
PERKINS: And that's right. The states should be able to, but they're not, because you have a couple of judges that are unelected who are deciding this, and it is going to be forced, as you just explained, how it is going to unfold. That does not give the states the ability to choose on this. That's why the federal government is having to step in, because you just outlined the strategy that the homosexual agenda, how it's going to be pushed.
WARD: Yes, the homosexual agenda. Not the civil rights agenda, Tony. Just the homosexual agenda.
PERKINS: Those are two separate issues.
WARD: No separate issue at all. The ability to go into a hospital room, the ability to adopt, the ability to...
PERKINS: That can be done now. That can be done now.
WARD: No, it's not being done.
PERKINS: It can be done.
WARD: Other than Vermont, Tony, have you seen anybody -- have you, the Family Research Council, have you put out a civil union plan for the rest of the states?
PERKINS: You don't need a civil union plan to have the rights to hospital visitation or the ability to inherit property.
WARD: You oppose civil unions, correct, Tony?
PERKINS: We do oppose civil unions. But you don't...
WARD: I know that, so let's be very clear. You don't want homosexuals to have any civil union or any marriage of any kind.
PERKINS: No marriage, no counterfeit marriage. But you're talking about...
WARD: Thank you very much. I just want everybody to understand your agenda. PERKINS: But you're talking about rights.
BLITZER: All right.
PERKINS: You're talking about things that can be done through civil law today.
WARD: And you oppose those.
BLITZER: Let's get through some e-mail questions. We have a lot of viewers who want to weigh in. Lisa in Wisconsin, this is for you, Tony.
"With regards to same-sex marriages, I'm tired of conservatives saying how we need to protect the sanctity of marriage. This phrase is so overused, empty and vague. As a married heterosexual female, I do not understand how two women or two men marrying will affect and/or compromise my marriage. As I see it, only my husband and I can affect our marriage."
What do you say to Lisa?
PERKINS: Well, I say that's what was said back in the late 1960s in California when no-fault divorce was passed, that it wouldn't affect marriage. And it's had a dramatic impact on the institution of marriage. And more importantly, it's had a dramatic impact upon children in this country. And this is the same type of social experiment that we're embarking upon without any research to say that it won't have a negative impact.
BLITZER: All right. Bernie, here's a -- hold on a second, Bernie. Here is an e-mail.
You can respond in response to Bonnie in Virginia who writes this -- a lot of viewers writing to us similar to what Bonnie is saying -- "Not only as a Christian, but as a human, I'm appalled at the idea of same-sex marriage. It goes against the very grain of humanity that a nation that was founded upon the principles of god and his teachings has stooped to this level. This is truly a sign of moral decay in our country."
WARD: Well, first of all, we've had 2,600 couples get married over the last five or six days. As far as I can tell, Sodom and Gomorrah have not yet reappeared in San Francisco.
Secondly, I'll be very happy to defer to no one on Christianity. And if you can find any mention by Jesus on homosexuality anywhere in the gospels, I'll be happy to defer to you.
And third, the idea that you are going to say that somehow allowing two people of the same sex who are committed to each other, sacrifice to each other, mutually exclusive to each other, et cetera, that somehow that will hurt the institution of marriage, while Britney Spears is getting married in Las Vegas overnight and we have a divorce rate below the bible belt of about 60 percent, no. I don't see any reason why to think that allowing same-sex couples to get married will have any harm to the institution of marriage. In fact, if you really want to go and save the institution of marriage, outlaw divorce.
BLITZER: Tony, I'll give you the last word.
PERKINS: Well, I think he makes a perfect case. Public policy has a dramatic influence on culture. It is policy that has knocked marriage off of its preferred platform that it had been on for centuries.
That's what no-fault divorce did; that's what same-sex marriage will do. And it will have a dramatic impact on the culture of this country. And more importantly, it will have a dramatic impact on our children.
BLITZER: A good, smart debate between Tony Perkins and Bernie Ward. We'll have you back. Thanks to both of you for joining us on an important subject clearly affecting the country right now.
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 18, 2004 - 12:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: The issue of same-sex marriage is turning into a political hot potato in a number of states, indeed, around the country. Could it impact the presidential race as well? Some thoughts now from our two guests.
In San Francisco, radio talk show host Bernie Ward. And from Dallas, Texas, Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council.
Thanks to both of you for joining us.
First of all, I want you both to listen to what President Bush said about this very sensitive issue only within the past few minutes in the Oval Office at the White House when he was asked to comment on what's happening in San Francisco.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I strongly believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. I'm troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage.
I have watched carefully what's happened in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise. I have consistently stated that if -- support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And obviously these events are influencing my decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Clearly suggesting he could go forward and support some sort of constitutional amendment.
Tony Perkins, what you heard from the president, is that good enough for you?
TONY PERKINS, PRESIDENT FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, I think it is time for the president to step out. I think Massachusetts has unleashed these rebellions across the country where you have in question is the rule of law.
I mean, you have judges in Massachusetts acting like legislators. Now you have a mayor in San Francisco acting like a judge. And I think it is time that, you know, this is put a stop to.
And it's become a national issue. So I think, ultimately, we are going to have to amend the national Constitution to define marriage as it has historically been defined, between a man and a woman.
BLITZER: All right. Bernie, what's wrong with that?
BERNIE WARD, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, first of all, I love the term "activist judges." I assume Tony and the others would have said the same thing when Brown v. Board of Education was passed, et cetera, that these were "activist judges."
I'll guarantee you, nobody in the South thought the Supreme Court should have made that decision. So they would have called them "activist judges." In Massachusetts, in Hawaii, and in Alaska, Tony and his ilk have had a chance to make their case for why the state should be able to discriminate against same-sex couples and they lost in all three states.
And they'll continue to lose anywhere they appear in court because it is very simple. There is no compelling state reason to stop same-sex marriages. And the state has not yet been able to come up with one. In fact, the reason that they're talking about a constitutional amendment is because they can't win in court. And so they've got to go for the first time to the Constitution and amend it to take rights away from people, rather than to protect the rights that are already there.
BLITZER: Tony?
PERKINS: Well, fortunately, we're a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, not the judges. And if you look at the legislative arena, where this should be debated -- it is public policy -- the homosexual activists have lost every time. And so they're trying to circumvent the democratic process and go through the courts and find aberrant executives who want to thumb their nose at the law.
WARD: I agree with you.
PERKINS: And the mayor in San Francisco is acting illegally. He has no right to do what he's doing. And the governor out there, "The Terminator," should terminate lawlessness.
WARD: Well, I agree with you, and that's exactly what Lester Maddox (ph) said and George Wallace and others when the decisions were coming down from the Warren court about civil liberties. And the majority of the people in this country didn't support it then.
Here we have again a situation where the courts are looking and saying, you don't have the right to discriminate. And your side, Tony, has not yet been able to come up with a single answer to that question, except a constitutional amendment, because you can't win in court.
PERKINS: We are winning on the state level as a result of what happened in Massachusetts. We've had over a half-dozen states that have already started the process of constitutional amendments to reinforce their laws because they don't want four unelected judges determining the definition of marriage in their states. It's the people that are speaking out very loud on this. It's the 2.5 percent of the population, the homosexual community, that's gone to the courts, and the people are not listening.
BLITZER: Tony, do you support what they call same-sex civil unions, which is not marriage, but would give partners in these kinds of situations additional legal rights?
PERKINS: You know, Wolf, it is not the benefits and the rights that they're looking for. If that were the case, in Vermont you would have all of the same-sex couples seeking it. In fact, only about 40 percent have adopted into the Vermont civil unions, which provides all the benefits of marriage.
This is about wanting to take over the institution of marriage and redefine it for all of America. And we're not about to let a small percentage of Americans, 2.5 percent, redefine it for the rest of us.
WARD: Well, and that's the argument that was made when 12 percent wanted to redefine the Jim Crow laws. And the reality is that the Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority like you, Tony. The Constitution...
PERKINS: Look, I'm from...
WARD: ... was to guarantee civil rights. And in this case, once the Supreme Court ruled on the sodomy laws in Texas, every one of these constitutional amendments in the states -- here is what's going to happen, Tony, and it's going to drive you nuts.
On May 17, you're going to be able to legally get married in Massachusetts. Those people are then go back to other states, and under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, that's going to have to be honored. They'll go to court, and the courts -- the federal courts will throw out every one of these state constitutional amendments as in violation of the federal Constitution. And for all intents and purposes, this debate will be over.
BLITZER: What about that, Tony?
PERKINS: The debate will just be beginning. That is why a constitutional amendment is needed on the federal level to protect the other 49 states or other 48 states from the rest of America from a couple aberrant states.
BLITZER: But Tony, even if it were going through as quickly as possible, that could take, as you well know, years for some sort of constitutional amendment to go through the process.
PERKINS: No, I don't think it takes that -- I think the biggest hurdle is getting it through Congress. I think ratification through the states is going to be a pretty rapid process. You've already had 39 states already pass Defense of Marriage acts.
WARD: It will take two years to get it passed. And then what are you going to do with all those legal marriages? You're going to turn around and say, now that you were married for two years, you are not married anymore? I would love to see you go to a court and have any court turn around and do that.
PERKINS: I think you're going to see a lot of those tied up in court during that two-year process. So I don't think you're going to see a free flow of same-sex marriages.
BLITZER: All right.
WARD: And we should remind you, Wolf, that when George Bush was asked this question in 2000, both he and Dick Cheney said this should be left up to the states. They said there's absolutely nothing that the government should be doing about this, and each individual state should be left on their own.
PERKINS: And that's right. The states should be able to, but they're not, because you have a couple of judges that are unelected who are deciding this, and it is going to be forced, as you just explained, how it is going to unfold. That does not give the states the ability to choose on this. That's why the federal government is having to step in, because you just outlined the strategy that the homosexual agenda, how it's going to be pushed.
WARD: Yes, the homosexual agenda. Not the civil rights agenda, Tony. Just the homosexual agenda.
PERKINS: Those are two separate issues.
WARD: No separate issue at all. The ability to go into a hospital room, the ability to adopt, the ability to...
PERKINS: That can be done now. That can be done now.
WARD: No, it's not being done.
PERKINS: It can be done.
WARD: Other than Vermont, Tony, have you seen anybody -- have you, the Family Research Council, have you put out a civil union plan for the rest of the states?
PERKINS: You don't need a civil union plan to have the rights to hospital visitation or the ability to inherit property.
WARD: You oppose civil unions, correct, Tony?
PERKINS: We do oppose civil unions. But you don't...
WARD: I know that, so let's be very clear. You don't want homosexuals to have any civil union or any marriage of any kind.
PERKINS: No marriage, no counterfeit marriage. But you're talking about...
WARD: Thank you very much. I just want everybody to understand your agenda. PERKINS: But you're talking about rights.
BLITZER: All right.
PERKINS: You're talking about things that can be done through civil law today.
WARD: And you oppose those.
BLITZER: Let's get through some e-mail questions. We have a lot of viewers who want to weigh in. Lisa in Wisconsin, this is for you, Tony.
"With regards to same-sex marriages, I'm tired of conservatives saying how we need to protect the sanctity of marriage. This phrase is so overused, empty and vague. As a married heterosexual female, I do not understand how two women or two men marrying will affect and/or compromise my marriage. As I see it, only my husband and I can affect our marriage."
What do you say to Lisa?
PERKINS: Well, I say that's what was said back in the late 1960s in California when no-fault divorce was passed, that it wouldn't affect marriage. And it's had a dramatic impact on the institution of marriage. And more importantly, it's had a dramatic impact upon children in this country. And this is the same type of social experiment that we're embarking upon without any research to say that it won't have a negative impact.
BLITZER: All right. Bernie, here's a -- hold on a second, Bernie. Here is an e-mail.
You can respond in response to Bonnie in Virginia who writes this -- a lot of viewers writing to us similar to what Bonnie is saying -- "Not only as a Christian, but as a human, I'm appalled at the idea of same-sex marriage. It goes against the very grain of humanity that a nation that was founded upon the principles of god and his teachings has stooped to this level. This is truly a sign of moral decay in our country."
WARD: Well, first of all, we've had 2,600 couples get married over the last five or six days. As far as I can tell, Sodom and Gomorrah have not yet reappeared in San Francisco.
Secondly, I'll be very happy to defer to no one on Christianity. And if you can find any mention by Jesus on homosexuality anywhere in the gospels, I'll be happy to defer to you.
And third, the idea that you are going to say that somehow allowing two people of the same sex who are committed to each other, sacrifice to each other, mutually exclusive to each other, et cetera, that somehow that will hurt the institution of marriage, while Britney Spears is getting married in Las Vegas overnight and we have a divorce rate below the bible belt of about 60 percent, no. I don't see any reason why to think that allowing same-sex couples to get married will have any harm to the institution of marriage. In fact, if you really want to go and save the institution of marriage, outlaw divorce.
BLITZER: Tony, I'll give you the last word.
PERKINS: Well, I think he makes a perfect case. Public policy has a dramatic influence on culture. It is policy that has knocked marriage off of its preferred platform that it had been on for centuries.
That's what no-fault divorce did; that's what same-sex marriage will do. And it will have a dramatic impact on the culture of this country. And more importantly, it will have a dramatic impact on our children.
BLITZER: A good, smart debate between Tony Perkins and Bernie Ward. We'll have you back. Thanks to both of you for joining us on an important subject clearly affecting the country right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
