Return to Transcripts main page
PAULA ZAHN NOW
Prosecution Rests in Martha Stewart Trial; God Squad on 'The Passion'
Aired February 20, 2004 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening and welcome. I'm Paula Zahn.
The world, the news, the names, the faces, and where we go from here Friday, February 20, 2004.
ZAHN (voice-over): "In Focus" tonight, Martha Stewart's defense takes on her friend of 20 years, and the government wraps up its case. We'll have all the details.
Also, our truth squad tonight, what the God Squad thinks after seeing Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus.
RABBI MARC GELLMAN, THE GOD SQUAD: The most powerful and extraordinary religious movie I have ever seen in my life.
ZAHN: Our exclusive interview with Rabbi Gellman and Father Hartman.
And why a man allegedly claimed his wife was killed in Iraq. She is very much alive and will join me for an exclusive interview.
ZAHN: All that, plus a new guide to business management "Sopranos" style.
But, first, here are some of the headlines you need to know right now.
The Caribbean's most glaring political hot spot continues to warrant concern. Today, several people in Haiti were injured when a protest against President Aristide turned violent. Today, ambassadors from several countries offered him a plan aimed at calming tensions. Also today, a Pentagon assessment team arrived in Haiti to size up the danger posed to Americans there.
A controversial policy in the war on terror will soon face a supreme test. The Supreme Court will decide whether Americans classified as enemy combatants can be held indefinitely without due process. The appeal in question involves alleged dirty bomber Jose Padilla.
"In Focus" tonight, the prosecution rests in the Martha Stewart case, but not before losing some ground gained from testimony from one of Stewart's closest friends, Mariana Pasternak said yesterday that Stewart had told her that she had sold her ImClone stock after her broker tipped her off that ImClone founder Sam Waksal was dumping his stock.
Well, today, Pasternak seemed to have some memory trouble. Senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and "People" magazine's Sharon Cotliar have been watching it all unfold in the courtroom. They both joining us now.
Let's work backwards here, Jeffrey.
Here's exactly what Ms. Pasternak said in court yesterday -- quote -- "Isn't it nice to have a broker who tells you those things?" But then today, during cross-examination, this is what she said: "I do not know if Martha said that or if I thought those words."
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Well, that's a little different.
ZAHN: Well, yes. So what do you believe, Jeffrey?
TOOBIN: The courtroom went sort of huh? It's a pretty big difference to say Martha Stewart said it and I thought it.
And she, on redirect examination, sort of embraced the statement again. She said, well, yes, I guess Martha probably did say it. But I think a lot of damage was done on that statement. But, remember, that only relates to one of the statements she made. The probably most incriminating thing she said was that Martha knew Sam and his daughter were dumping the stock, and that wasn't even acknowledged on cross-examination. So she's still a very good witness for the prosecution.
ZAHN: You were watching the jury very closely.
SHARON COTLIAR, "PEOPLE": Yes.
ZAHN: So when you heard the reversal the first time, before she went -- and we'll put this up on the screen -- where she later amended it and said: "It was possible I thought it. I believe it was Martha who said it."
COTLIAR: They noticed the waffle. They looked surprise. There was one juror who actually rolled her eyes. There's no way this went past them. It may still be damaging, but certainly it appeared to them that she significantly changed her testimony.
ZAHN: What was Martha Stewart's demeanor during all of this?
COTLIAR: She's been very well trained by her lawyers to maintain her composure. So she stayed stone-faced throughout most of this.
ZAHN: So she didn't seem to have any appreciable reaction to Ms. Pasternak changing her story?
COTLIAR: Not that you could see.
TOOBIN: Their eyes hardly ever met. It was really quite an emotional thing, when you think about it. This is really her best friend. Mariana Pasternak testified that they spoke every day. They saw each other at least once a week. They had traveled the world together. These were close friends.
And Mariana Pasternak had some very damaging testimony. So the personal interaction, they both seemed to agree not to talk to -- not to look at each other, don't you think?
COTLIAR: Yes, but this is a loss for her. You're talking about one of her very best friends. So this is a loss for her to not be able to have this person in her life anymore.
ZAHN: Well, this shouldn't come as a surprise to her.
ZAHN: Because when the prosecution laid out the case, we knew she was going to be called, and she knew she was going to be called.
Let's come back to some of the other testimony the jury heard today. Two friends of Douglas Faneuil, what did they have to say?
TOOBIN: Well, they testified that, right after the sale of stock in December of 2001, just a few days later, they heard Faneuil saying, you know, I had to lie for my boss. I'm freaking out about this. The SEC is investigating.
It was really very good corroborating testimony of Faneuil, who is by far the most incriminating witness against Bacanovic and also quite incriminating against Martha.
ZAHN: Your read on all that?
COTLIAR: I think they did some damage as well. They weren't inconsistent. They supported what Faneuil has said. And the jury heard that.
ZAHN: All right, well, Jeffrey and Sharon, thank you for both dropping by tonight.
TOOBIN: Defense case next week.
ZAHN: We'll see if Martha takes the stand. That's the big question. TOOBIN: We'll know soon.
Next week, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" opens in theaters after months of controversy and heated debate. It tells the story of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus. And many of Gibson's critics fear the film could inspire anti-Semitism. Will it?
Well, our truth squad tonight is the God Squad. Rabbi Marc Gellman and Father Tom Hartman are among those who have previewed the film. And they join us now exclusively for the first interview since seeing the movie.
Always good to see you, welcome.
FATHER THOMAS HARTMAN, THE GOD SQUAD: Thank you.
GELLMAN: God bless you. God bless you.
ZAHN: Thank you. We can always use God's blessing.
HARTMAN: He's so religious.
GELLMAN: I'm not willing to go the whole way here, but I will tell you, it is, in my opinion, the most powerful and extraordinary religious movie I have ever seen in my life.
ZAHN: All right, I will grant you that. But is it anti-Semitic?
GELLMAN: The movie is not anti-Semitic. I don't believe Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic.
However, the movie is so powerful and powerful for good reasons. It is the real Christian story. And for all these years, we've had a sort of politically correct Christian story, which was told in a way as to not offend anyone. This movie has the possibility of enraging people. But the truth is the truth. And it is not the problem with the movie, Paula. It's the problem with the Christian story.
ZAHN: All right, so what part of the story isn't diluted that you think some people will find offensive?
HARTMAN: Well, the issue is that Jesus, who is it that killed Jesus? And if you look upon this as a murder, you want to go after the people who did it and condemn them. If you look at Jesus' time on Earth as a gift, that he came for a specific purpose, to die for our sins, it wasn't just the Romans. It wasn't just the Jews. It's all of us.
ZAHN: In a recent article, you make it very clear that you feel that Jews and Christians can sit in the same theater and see two entirely different movies.
GELLMAN: They will. They will. Jews who go into this theater already not loving Christians the way I love Tommy are going to come out of the theater thinking that this is going to cause pogroms, they will have reason to believe that. The image of the Jews, particularly the priests, Caiaphas, and the other (UNINTELLIGIBLE) priests in the temple, is so negative, is so incredibly venomous.
ZAHN: Some critics suggest highly exaggerated, the caricatures of them.
GELLMAN: I don't think exaggerated is fair. They hated him, and they wanted him dead. And there were also members of his own religious party, the Pharisees, who wanted him dead.
But they wanted him dead because he had committed this immense sin, the sin of saying God can become man and the sin of saying that he was messiah. So they hated him because he violated the most fundamental beliefs of Judaism.
Now, this movie gives us a chance to grow up. It gives Jews a chance to grow up and say, let's let the Christians tell their story the way it really is, knowing that there's anti-Jewish elements in that story. And let us understand and hope that Christians will prevent that story from ever being used to hurt Jews again. And let's let Christians grow up and say, we have to take responsibility for how our story has been used.
ZAHN: Let's talk about how Mel Gibson is defending his film. He was quoted as saying: "Critics who have a problem with me don't really have a problem with me in this film. They have a problem with the four gospels."
HARTMAN: Is there some truth to that?
There is. Mel Gibson not only used the four gospels, but he used some mystics and some outside works. So some irreconcilable differences do exist in the text. But, generally speaking, he follows the gospels in a literal sense. And he, of course, eliminated the section, "Let his blood be upon us and our people," which was a strong anti-Jewish sentiment that he took out.
ZAHN: Well, I think, after all these years of knowing the two of you, this is the most aligned you've ever been on a single topic.
GELLMAN: And I never thought I would.
ZAHN: He believes in the old book. He believes in the new book.
GELLMAN: Paula, I was prepared to hate this film. I was all ready to hate it. I was ready to hate it, because of all of the hype and because of Mel Gibson's father's ridiculous comments about the Holocaust and all of that. I was prepared to hate it. But I didn't hate it. In fact, I saw it as a work of immense power, potential danger, but a chance, an opportunity, for us all to spiritually grow.
ZAHN: Rabbi Marc Gellman, Monsignor Thomas Hartman, thank you very much for your inspired perspectives tonight.
GELLMAN: You're welcome.
ZAHN: Next, we turn to presidential politics, and the big question this weekend: Will Ralph Nader run for president again? And if he does, what will it mean?
Also, have you ever snooped through your children's things? Well, some people say you could be sued for it. We're going to look at the debate over parents' rights.
And lessons in management from Tony Soprano.
ZAHN: And we turn now to presidential politics and what the gay marriage debate may mean for President Bush's reelection campaign. How should he deal with the issue to guarantee his conservative Christian base will show up on Election Day?
Joining us now, regular contributor, "TIME" magazine columnist Joe Klein. And joining us from Washington tonight, Gary Bauer, a Republican presidential candidate four years ago, who also served as domestic policy adviser to President Reagan.
Good to see both of you. Welcome.
JOE KLEIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be here.
BLITZER: Before we talk about gay marriage, let's talk about Ralph Nader. He's expected to talk about a potential run for the presidency on Sunday on a talk show. What do you make of it?
KLEIN: Well, it's hard to say what to make of it. Obviously, if he decides to run for the presidency, it's bad news for the Democrats. But given what I've seen from Democrats out in the country this year, there isn't going to be as much market for an environmental, consumer- oriented Nader campaign, because they just really want to beat Bush.
ZAHN: So if Kerry ends up being the nominee and the race is really close with George Bush, how much could Ralph Nader hurt him?
KLEIN: He could kill him. He killed Al Gore, arguably, in 2000. It's a big problem.
ZAHN: Gary, let's move on to the issue of gay marriage. Is it a pivotal issue for Christian conservatives? GARY BAUER, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN VALUES: Well, Paula, I'd say it's a pivotal issue for a significant majority of the country. This is one of those issues where making the president's base happy also coincides with promoting something that most Americans agree with, which is that marriage is between only one man and one woman.
So I think this is a great issue. It's one that we ought to debate. And, certainly, given the headlines of the last couple of weeks, it would be an extraordinary thing to have a presidential election where this was not a central issue. This is a real crisis for the institution of marriage and something that I think the president will take a very active role in blocking.
ZAHN: Does this become a decisive issue, Joe, in this campaign?
KLEIN: Well, if it does become a decisive issue, Paula, it will only be because the Democrats are killing the president on the war and the economy, and he has to get desperate and move to cultural issues.
But I don't think -- I would dispute what Gary just said. I don't think that, while there's a great deal of concern about this out in the country, it isn't a voting issue. It isn't a pivotal issue. In the surveys that I've seen of evangelical Christians, it's way down their list of priorities.
The top priority is kind of impact, terrible impact that the commercial culture has on their children. And then farther down is abortion. And way, way down is homosexuality, which, as Gary knows, Jesus never mentioned.
BAUER: Well, it's not a question of whether Jesus mentioned homosexuality or not.
When you poll people and ask them what the definition of marriage is, those polls are overwhelming. And when you break it down for those Americans that feel strongly about it, the percentage that feels strongly is incredibly high. Look, Joe, there's no place in the country where people have voted for gay marriage.
ZAHN: Gary, do you think the president ultimately will back a constitutional amendment and we will see that over the next couple of months in play?
BAUER: Yes, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he will support such an amendment. I believe he's said enough in recent months, beginning in his State of the Union address, that makes it clear that, if out-of-control judges continue to force this on the American people, he will act. And I believe that's exactly what's happening in Massachusetts and
ZAHN: If he ultimately backs this constitutional amendment, what is the potential fall-out for the president?
KLEIN: It's a dangerous issue. The president has a vice president whose child is gay. This is a very personal issue.
It's the sort of issue that politicians hate. And it is an issue that only is a big deal to a small number of extremists on both sides, in the gay community and also in the evangelical community. Most homosexuals, most evangelicals, couldn't care less about it.
BAUER: I just think, Joe, on this one is dead wrong.
KLEIN: It's not going to affect your marriage, is it?
BAUER: Oh, sure. Look, it affects all of us.
KLEIN: It's not going to affect my marriage.
BAUER: Of course it will. You may not see the immediate effect, but if somebody is making counterfeit $5 bills down the street from you, that cheapens the value of your $5 bill.
KLEIN: I don't think so.
BAUER: No culture in the world, Joe, no culture in the world for 3,000 years, even ancient Rome didn't go down this road.
ZAHN: Joe Klein, Gary Bauer, we've got to leave the debate there this evening. Thank you both, gentlemen.
BAUER: Thank you.
ZAHN: Saddam Hussein out of the picture. So who now makes the list of the world's worst dictators?
And why would a husband whose wife is at war in Iraq try to fake her death? Well, police in Connecticut are asking that question. And we will be talking with the wife in an exclusive interview right after a couple of breaks.
ZAHN: Last year, Saddam Hussein was No. 3 on "Parade" magazine's list of the 10 worst living dictators. Obviously, it's time for an update.
The annual list is out once again, newly revised, newly horrendous, and one name is even linked to a close friend of the U.S. Let's high-five this segment with five quick questions, five answers direct and to the point with "Parade" contributing editor David Wallechinsky.
Good to see you, David. Welcome.
DAVID WALLECHINSKY, "PARADE": Thank you very much.
ZAHN: So who are the three world's worst dictators? WALLECHINSKY: No. 1 goes again to Kim Jong Il of North Korea, who has by far the most repressive regime. Not only are people not allowed to express themselves, but they don't even know what's going on in the rest of the world. There's 150,000 people in labor camps. And he ranks last in Reporters Without Borders' ranking of press freedoms.
No. 2 would go to Than Shwe of Burma, also known as Myanmar, where they're No. 1 in child labor. They abduct people off the street to work as porters for the military. And they almost killed the leading opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner.
And No. 3 I give to Hu Jintao of China. Last year, he wasn't on the list because he was a rookie. But -- although a lot of apologists will remind us that China has opened up economically, politically, it's still a communist dictatorship without the basic freedoms that we consider important.
ZAHN: So what is one of the worst things these dictators did last year?
WALLECHINSKY: I think if you're looking for something that's more unusual or has gotten worst over the years, you might go to No. 4, which is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who, over the past three years -- he was originally a very popular revolutionary leader, the first black leader of Zimbabwe.
But he has become increasingly dictatorial over the years. In the last three years, he has either killed, imprisoned or displaced 70,000 people and he's used food as a political weapon, keeping it away from districts that don't support him.
ZAHN: How do you even go about figuring out who the worst 10 tyrants are?
WALLECHINSKY: First of all, I consult human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House, which have shown that they're willing to expose both left- and right- wing regimes, without having a political agenda.
And then I judge it by civil liberties. Are people allowed to choose their own leaders? Are they allowed to express themselves? Can they express their religious beliefs? And then I give what I would call extra credit to dictators who use torture, who threaten their neighboring countries, and who, you know, actually murder people.
ZAHN: Saddam's off the list. Who else didn't make it this year?
WALLECHINSKY: Well, the other person who's no longer in power from last year is my No. 4, Charles Taylor of Liberia, who agreed to go into exile in Nigeria, which is where he is now. I dropped from the list Gadhafi of Libya and Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, Europe's last dictator, not because Gadhafi and Lukashenko got better, but because other people got worse. ZAHN: Why did Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia make the list? Isn't he supposed to be an ally?
WALLECHINSKY: Well, he is an ally, but that doesn't mean he's any less of a dictator. Saudi Arabia is one of the only countries, maybe the only country that has no elections whatsoever, not even fake elections. And they have said that they will have municipal elections in the coming year, but they have not yet announced if women will be allowed to vote in them, much less run.
And, of course, the rights of women in Saudi Arabia is outrageous. You know, in a court case, a man's testimony is equal to the testimony of two women. If there's a divorce case, as many American women have unfortunately found out when they've married Saudis, in a divorce case, the man automatically gets the children, the boys at the age of 7 and the girls at the age of 9, no exceptions.
ZAHN: A terrible subject to broach, but you made us all smarter tonight.
David Wallechinsky, thank you.
A big battle brewing over the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit. Do moms and dads need legal protection to snoop through their children's things?
Also, in an exclusive interview, I'll be talking with the female soldier in Iraq whose husband allegedly tried to fake her death. We're going to find out why.
And then, on Monday, we start a special Oscar week series, the real-life stories behind this year's Academy Award-nominated films.
ZAHN: Welcome back.
Here are some of the headlines you need to know at the bottom of the hour here.
President Bush has used a second recess appointment to appoint another controversial judge. Alabama's William Pryor is now a member of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats have objected to Pryor's past statements on abortion and homosexuality.
Some American diplomats and families stationed in Saudi Arabia have been cleared to return after two months away. In December, nonessential U.S. personnel and their families were advised to leave due to security concerns. Private citizens are still encouraged to avoid traveling there.
The space where a now infamous nightclub once stood is in the setting of a solemn memorial tonight. Right now in West Warwick, Rhode Island, friends and family are observing the first anniversary of the Station nightclub fire; 100 were killed there, 200 injured. Now, in a case that made headlines across the country, the husband of a U.S. Army Reserve sergeant told police he was devastated to get a call telling him that his wife had died in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EDWARD VALENTIN JR., HUSBAND OF BETSY VALENTIN: I went crazy. I went berserk. They knew a lot of information about my wife, so it could have came from the Pentagon. Who knows? They spoke to me professional, military-like, you know?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: But Edward Valentin's wife was alive and well. And he now admits he lied about her death.
Some reports say he was simply desperate to get her back home. But police now say it may have had something to do with another woman. Well, Sergeant Betsy Valentin is on leave from duty in Iraq. And she joins us now for this exclusive interview.
Welcome home. Thanks so much for joining us.
SGT. BETSY VALENTIN, U.S. ARMY: Thank you.
ZAHN: I know this is a very emotional time for you, getting to see your kids for the first time in many, many months, but also dealing with this news.
Why do you think your husband told everybody you had died?
VALENTIN: Because, as I've come to find out, he wanted sympathy from the other woman, not the reasons that he gave at the beginning, that he wanted me back home.
ZAHN: Have you spoken with him?
VALENTIN: No, I have not. I don't want to.
ZAHN: Has he tried to call you since you got home?
VALENTIN: Yes, he has tried several times.
ZAHN: And you've refused those calls?
VALENTIN: I've refused.
ZAHN: How did you find out that you had been reported dead?
VALENTIN: Through an e-mail from a Waterbury reporter that I kept in close contact with.
ZAHN: And what did that reporter tell you?
VALENTIN: She was -- we promised to keep in touch on a regular basis and she pretty much was asking me, am I all right? She hasn't heard from me in a little bit, and would I please contact her and tell her that I was OK. She didn't go into details as to why.
So I e-mailed her, and I got another e-mail that said I needed to call home as soon as possible.
ZAHN: And then what happened?
VALENTIN: When I called home is when I found out that they all thought that I was dead. And they needed the reassurance I was OK.
ZAHN: What were you thinking at that point?
VALENTIN: I was thinking what kind of a human being could do something like this and devastate the people like the way that they did? Devastate my family and my friends and everyone. Who would be capable of something this terrible?
ZAHN: And in particular, your children. Your children really believed you were dead, didn't they?
VALENTIN: Yes, they did.
ZAHN: And how old are your kids?
VALENTIN: My daughter's 12, and I have a 13-year-old son and a 15-year-old son.
ZAHN: And how have you explained to them what happened here?
VALENTIN: I have not really got into details. I just got home last night, and I went straight to see them, and I showed them that I was OK because we had talked on the phone until I was able to return home.
And I just wanted to reassure them that I was OK. I told them, look at me. There's nothing wrong with me. I'm here, and I'm well and alive.
ZAHN: Obviously, they've got to be very happy to have you home. I know they were very concerned about you.
How angry are they about being put in the middle of all this?
VALENTIN: Actually, they -- I believe they're still in shock, so they're handling, I guess, the best that kids can handle things this way, which I can't even imagine how. But I'm there to comfort them.
ZAHN: And how bitter are you about what has happened?
VALENTIN: I am very angry, very, very angry. I am still in shock and disbelief. I'm still trying to -- I'm trying to understand what would lead him to do something this despicable to his own children.
ZAHN: And there is no doubt in your mind that he made up this story to somehow protect a relationship with another woman?
ZAHN: Because there was a theory that perhaps he made this all up to get you home.
VALENTIN: No. I don't believe that at all. I have gotten information from the police department, and I had some questions that I needed answered, and I got -- I was able to see for myself that that was not the case. This was all due to another woman.
ZAHN: So what do you plan to do now?
VALENTIN: I don't want anything else to do with him. I just plan on getting my children the help that they need for all of the -- I mean, everything that he's put them through. I just want to get my children help and be there for them. And he's out of my life for good.
He killed me once when he said that I was dead. And to him, I am dead forever.
ZAHN: If he is listening to you tonight, what do you want him to hear? What do you want him to know?
VALENTIN: I want him to know that I don't hate him because, out of everything that I've been through in the 16 years of marriage that we've had together he gave me the three most beautiful gifts, which are my children.
And I really feel sorry that he's stooped down to this level, and he's done what he's done. He's just going to have to deal with his action and consequences and maybe someday he'll realize everything that he lost.
ZAHN: And you not only have to deal with the horror of that, but the memories of what you saw in Iraq. What -- I can't even imagine on an emotional level what it's been like for you to come home under these circumstances. Reflect on what it was like to leave that country when you were so vulnerable.
VALENTIN: I really didn't know what I was coming home too. I didn't know what to expect because I had been home on leave on ordinary leave, just to see my kids. And I had no indication, no idea in the world that anything was going on.
And to have to come home under these circumstances, I really didn't know what to expect. I'm still trying to let everything sink in. I'm still in shock. I still can't believe this is really going on. It's like a nightmare that nobody wants to have.
ZAHN: Well, we very much appreciate your sharing your story with us at this really tough time for you, Sergeant Valentin. Best of luck to you.
VALENTIN: Thank you very much.
ZAHN: And welcome home. We're all very proud of your service to this country.
VALENTIN: Thank you.
ZAHN: We'll be right back.
ZAHN: What if your children had the right to take you to court for snooping in their room? That may seem farfetched, but this week Florida lawmakers had a hot debate over a constitutional amendment that would draw the line between a child's right to privacy and the rights of parents.
Let's get a taste of that now. Joining us tonight from Miami, Florida state representative Gaston Cantens who favors the parental rights amendment, and state representative Dan Gelber who's against it. Welcome, gentlemen.
So, Representative Cantens, let's cut straight to the chase here. Are you telling me that, as a parent, I actually need a law to give me the right to snoop in my child's room?
GASTON CANTENS (R), FL. STATE REP.: Paula, there is no doubt that in Florida today parents have less rights than parents in other states. The parental rights amendment that's being proposed to the legislature that would be voted on by the voters at then end of the year would provide a an expressed provision in Florida constitution that would guarantee to parents that they have the right to raise, educate, and care for their children.
And we're hopeful that such an expressed provision of parental rights in the constitution will prevent any further erosion of parents' rights in Florida and that parents in Florida can have the same rights as parents in other states.
ZAHN: Representative Gelber, what are you afraid of?
DAN GELBER (D), FL. STATE REP.: I'm not afraid of anything. Parents have the right to snoop in their kids' room in Florida. This is not about parental right, this is about abortion. And that's all this is about.
This is an election year stunt, political stunt to try to put in front of the voters something that my colleagues can claim is some kind of cultural war when it really isn't.
The truth is in Florida you can snoop in your kids' room. I can go in my kids -- they're 3 and 5, so I won't find anything but really diapers. But the truth is you have those rights in Florida right now, and this is about abortion. It's to about trying to sort of create a stealth bill that can put before Florida's voters issues that may end up eroding lots of the rights that Floridaians enjoy.
ZAHN: Representative Cantens, react to that. What really is at play here? CANTENS: The issue arose within the context of a parental notification case that came before the supreme court. But what came out of that case after the fact is great uncertainty as to what the proper balance is in Florida today with regards to parents' rights and their ability to parent -- their right to be a parent and the rights of minors to have privacy.
ZAHN: All right, but how does this apply to abortion then? So if a child has an abortion under this law, they would be forced to notify a parent?
GELBER: What this law does is -- what this law does, let's understand. This is a constitutional amendment that we don't really know what it does, except we absolutely do know because the folks, including Representative Cantens who wrote it have a say what it does, the only thing it will affect is abortion.
I would ask him Representative Cantens to tell me what other laws he's concerned about happening, that he needs to repair, other than what the abortion laws are.
This is clearly an amendment intended to curry favor with the right wing base of the Republican party in an election year. It deals with abortion and nothing else. And he ought to tell me if he's worried about parents not being able to snoop in their kids' rooms, I'd like to know that, because we'll address that and we'll talk about that right now, but that's not what it's....
ZAHN: Representative Cantens, parents do have the right to do that right now, right?
CANTENS: I presume so. But the problem that we have is a great deal of uncertainty as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, the Florida Supreme Court's decision, where they created this balancing act between two fundamental rights: the fundamental right of parenting and the fundamental right to privacy, as expressed in the Florida constitution. And they basically said the minor's right to privacy trumps the parent's right to be a parent.
Now the constitutional amendment itself will have absolutely no impact on the parental notification issue. It will have absolutely no impact on reproductive rights, as guaranteed by the United States constitution and the United States Supreme Court. Representative Gelber, who's a fine lawyer, understands very well, as we all do, that there is absolutely nothing that the state of Florida can do, whether it's through a constitutional amendment here in Florida or through legislation, that would have any impact on the rights protected by the United States constitution and the United States Supreme Court with regard to reproductive rights of minors. They are protected.
ZAHN: Obviously, Representative Gelber, you don't believe that's the case. You think it is all about abortion.
Let me ask you this. Do you think it's okay for a minor to have an abortion without notifying a parent? GELBER: It depends on the circumstances. Let me explain something to you, 9 out of 10 minors who go have an abortion with their parents. This is a very difficult issue. It isn't an issue that should be settled in some stealth amendment that is sort of almost bizarre in how -- in what it might do.
The truth is the State Senate, as opposed to the House members, which we're in, have created a constitutional amendment on parental notification. And they think that should be the issue and we should be able to look at it and vote on it. But what we have here is something that clearly only deals with abortion in a way we don't know what it will do. And there are lots of other laws in Florida, matrimonial laws, education laws, that could be adversely affected by this amendment.
ZAHN: We will be watching the debate closely from here. Dan Gelber, Gaston Cantens, thank you both for joining us tonight.
As more people line up for gay marriage licenses in San Francisco and other communities start issuing licenses, we're going to talk about a gay couple that just tied the knot.
And having trouble getting the most out of your employees, you want to hear about management the Tony Soprano way.
ZAHN: For the second time in a week, conservatives have been turned back in their efforts to keep San Francisco from granting any more marriage license to same sex couples. Well tonight, a judge there once again refused to issue a temporary restraining order against the city.
Meanwhile, the same sex marriage movement has officially made its way to New Mexico. Dozens of same sex couples converged on a town near Santa Fe after a county clerk stunned everyone by announcing she would begin granting licenses to gays and lesbians.
Well, in the past week, many gay couples called impromptu weddings after jetting off to San Francisco to get their certificates. Edwin Gomez and James Packard are among them. They made the trip from Maryland and quickly tied the knot in the Bay area. Gentlemen, welcome. Thanks so much for joining us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you for having us.
ZAHN: So you're repeating basically a ceremony that you had done some six years ago in Amsterdam. Why go through this process a second time?
EDWIN GOMEZ, MARRIED PARTNER IN SAN FRANCISCO: We've been wanting to be married legally for so long.
JAMES PACKARD, MARRIED PARTNER IN SAN FRANCISCO: In the United States.
GOMEZ: In the United States.
And we found out about San Francisco, he got so excited. And we -- last minute, we decided just to fly in.
PACKARD: I mean, it was like in 20 hours before the flight, we booked our flights, and everyone had to, you know, scheduled to take off work. And we flew out Monday evening at 9:00 p.m. on the red eye, arriving in Oakland, California, drove into San Francisco. You know, slept out on concrete for like eight hours just to...
ZAHN: You came home with a certificate. What legal rights do you now expect in your home state of Maryland?
GOMEZ: I expect to be treated equally, like everybody else. I think everybody wants to be treated equal. I don't know what's such a big deal about this marriage certificate. We've been wanting to -- I mean, being American, I feel like that everybody is allowed to be equal.
PACKARD: I mean, under the constitution.
ZAHN: But you're up against some legal stuff you don't have much control over. Next week the state's going to consider a bill that will prevent same sex marriages being performed in other states from being recognized. How might that impact you?
PACKARD: Well, you know, we've been considering that and talking to Maryland delegates and talking to local ACLU and other individuals, and we're just kind of -- you know, it's happened so quickly, and we've been thrown into this. We just expected to go out and get married and be recognized like every other husband and wife throughout the country that takes for granted. I mean, we wanted...
ZAHN: James, what do you say to the folks out there who say why did you have to go through the whole process of marriage? Wouldn't you have gotten the same rights through a civil union?
PACKARD: No. I mean, I think, and people have been stating throughout the country that that doesn't represent us as a marriage, it's a second class type of citizen. You know, that we want the equal rights, the Social Security benefits that married couples take for granted, the inheritance benefits from being married. You know, there's so many benefits that we don't get to partake in that heterosexual and husband and wife take for granted.
ZAHN: Well, you certainly have traveled a lot of miles to make this happen. James Packard, Edwin Gomez, thanks for sharing your story tonight.
GOMEZ: Thank you, Paula.
ZAHN: A pleasure.
At this point, it's unclear whether the marriage licenses that thousands of people are holding right now have any legal merit at all. Even some of the more liberal politicians say it's pretty clear San Francisco is actually violating the law.
But the city's mayor says he has the U.S. constitution on his side, calling it an issue of equal protection. To put that part of the story in plain English, we now ask a legal expert how he thinks it will all play out. Russell Robinson of Fordham Law School is an attorney here in New York, welcome. This is a mess, isn't it?
RUSSELL ROBINSON, ATTORNEY: It is very messy right now for couples that have just gotten married in San Francisco. It's unclear how it's going to play out in the long term.
ZAHN: So, basically, you have 38 states in this country that have banned same-sex marriages.
ROBINSON: That's right.
ZAHN: What would it take to legally turn that around?
ROBINSON: Certainly, if the U.S. Supreme court got involved, it could issue a definitive ruling that would settle this for all states. I think that's unlikely to happen in the near future. We're going to have a patchwork system where states do different things and gay couples will have to move to various states in order to be married or obtain a civil union.
ZAHN: Is there legal recourse for these couples?
ROBINSON: They can rely, first and foremost, on the U.S. constitution.
ZAHN: The equal protection clause?
ROBINSON: Also, the due process clause, the right to marry which applies to heterosexual people, and the argument is it should apply to homosexuals.
ZAHN: What do you think is the biggest legal obstacle these couples face that are holding marriage certificates?
ROBINSON: I think the difficulty is when you have these laws passed by the states and the federal government indicating an opposition to same sex marriage, then the courts will be very hesitant to step in and overrule the majority's opinion. A very recent expression of an opposition to gay marriage would be a huge obstacle for a lot of courts. They would view themselves as judicial activists if they got involved.
ZAHN: What kind of timeline are we looking at here to get this reconciled?
ROBINSON: This could unfold over several years even decades. The Supreme Court's tendency is not to get involved until there's a consensus that's developed and right now there's no real consensus.
ZAHN; And do you believe what's going on in San Francisco has been legal? Do you think, as the mayor says, that this is -- that he can do this through the equal protection clause?
ROBINSON: It's a very difficult question. I do believe it's going to have to be resolved by the California supreme court. Most likely the equal protection guarantee in the California court is vague. And so the court will have a lot of discretion as to how it wants to handle this issue.
ZAHN: Russ Robinson, we appreciate your educating us on this tonight.
ROBINSON: Thank you.
ZAHN: We're going to wrap up our week with some lessons in business management from "The Sopranos" of all folks.
ZAHN: When it comes to business advice, who wouldn't listen to Tony Soprano? He's intelligent, assertive, and he usually gets what he wants. Author Anthony Schneider believes real world managers would be better at their jobs just by stealing some pages from the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) playbook. He has a new book out called "Tony Soprano on Management Leadership, Lessons Inspired by America's Favorite Mobster." Anthony Schneider joins us now. Welcome.
Who knew Tony Soprano would be so inspiring when it comes to management technique?
ANTHONY SCHNEIDER, AUTHOR, "TONY SOPRANO ON MANAGEMENT": I got to admit, I sort of didn't. I started watching the show, and I loved the show, and I just remember saying to myself, hey, this guy's really a great manager. And started using some of the things that he did and found them very successful.
ZAHN: Name one thing that you did that you saw on that show that ended up being effective in real life.
SCHNEIDER: One definitely was very early on that I thought there's something remarkable about him that's not really in the management books you read. This guy wants to lead. He wants to be the boss. If someone questions his authority, he says something like I'm the blank one that calls the shots. And I thought, you know, there is this thing about having a structure in a business, a hierarchy, and that's more effective than some of the stuff that I've been reading, and that really worked.
ZAHN: Let's test the theory here with the sampling of an episode on HBO where it's quite clear that Tony is in charge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY SOPRANO, "THE SOPRANOS": I want to know why there's zero growth in this family's receipts. Where's the [ bleep ] money? You're supposed to be earners. That's why you got the top-tier positions. So each one of you go out to your people on the street, crack some [ bleep ] heads and create some [ bleep ] dollars out there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: I learned a lot from that scene. It would go over really big in this building. What are we supposed to learn from that?
SCHNEIDER: I love that scene. That is the "we suck" meeting. It's brilliantly done. Tony does it incredibly well. This is, of course, something you don't see very much in management, nor should you. But what you just got a little taste of was this meeting where he's trying to fix some problems and he's trying to fix systemic problems.
ZAHN: This is the collective sense of we stink. We've got to get a whole lot better. There's probably nicer ways to do that in a group setting.
SCHNEIDER: Yes, but what was going wrong was bad. This is really a case of the machine has faltered. You need to fix it. You don't hear him naming names. You hear him trying to think of what's really going wrong.
ZAHN: The second lesson, nothing's personal. Let's watch Tony at work when he's trying to manage his family.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a huge amount of money. And your construction project shut down.
SOPRANO: Well, that can't last forever. It's for the family. As the kids get older, it gets harder to keep us all together, but this is a draw. Bring friends down, have big cookouts, jet ski.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: So how is he at managing his family?
SCHNEIDER: Well, the truth is he's less successful in managing his family, but I think what that clip speaks to is the idea of vision. One thing I say is vision is like good food. Tony has this incredible vision for himself, his family, and his business. You see in this scene how they're all so important to him.
ZAHN: And don't waffle on it. Now, Carmela, you also think has some pretty good ideas, not necessarily we could structure our life around, but maybe learn something from.
SCHNEIDER: I think she's great. I think Carmela is a management super hero in her own right. What she does so well is she manages up. There's a lot of talk these days about how you influence your boss or your clients or your board or your husband or your wife. And she's really good at it. She does it kind of like Tony does. She's not afraid to squeeze when she's managing up.
ZAHN: The bottom line is that this guy's effective because he rules out of fear and intimidation.
SCHNEIDER: Yes and no.
ZAHN: Isn't that the essence of what lessons are learned here?
SCHNEIDER: He's not afraid to squeeze. He's pushy. He's direct.
ZAHN: To squeeze, to kill. We're not going to talk about that.
SCHNEIDER: There's this highfalutin management term called constructive manipulation which sort of says if you have the vision and the values of your company, you can make sure you instill that in others.
ZAHN: Well, congratulations on your new book. Good luck to you.
SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much.
ZAHN: Just to be clear, we want you to know that HBO Production itself had nothing to do with this book. Again, good of you to drop by. Thank you all for being with us tonight. That wraps it up for all of us here. We will back same time same place Monday night. We hope you all have a great weekend. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com