Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Examines Same-Sex Marriage; Italy to Retry Amanda Knox

Aired March 26, 2013 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: One report indicates very soon a gay NFL player will come out. But the headline, he's not afraid of the locker room. He's afraid of the fans. I'm Brooke Baldwin. The news is now.

(voice-over): Find out why drones could be flying over your house sooner than you think.

And the author of "Friday Night Lights" admits he has a serious addiction to shopping.

Plus, acquitted of killing her roommate during a drug-fueled sex game, Italy wants Amanda Knox back.

And, as the demand for ammo goes up, so do job openings.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BALDWIN: Top of the hour. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

For civil rights, it was Brown vs. Board of Education, for women's rights, Roe v. Wade. Now gay rights advocates are hoping Hollingsworth v. Perry becomes their landmark case, because this is the case that the U.S. Supreme Court heard today on whether same-sex marriage should in fact be legal.

And we're now getting this audio from inside the nation's highest court. Let me play this for you. Let me set this up. This exchange is between Justice Elena Kagan and the attorney against same-sex marriage, Charles Cooper.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

ELENA KAGAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Mr. Cooper, suppose a state said, because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we're not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55? Would that be constitutional?

CHRIS COOPER, ATTORNEY: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

KAGAN: Because that's the same state interest, I would think, you know. If you're over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interests in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile. And the traditional...

(CROSSTALK)

KAGAN: No, really, because if a couple...

(LAUGHTER)

KAGAN: I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

(LAUGHTER)

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BALDWIN: A little laughter inside the U.S. Supreme Court today. So at the heart of this case is Proposition 8, or Prop 8, which bans same-sex marriage.

Californians approved it five years ago, but these two here, same-sex couples, the plaintiffs in this case, are arguing that keeping them from getting married is unconstitutional.

On the flip side, supporters of Prop 8 say the court should not undo a decision by the voters.

Let's turn now to two strong voices on this issue. We have Ben Ferguson, host of radio's "Ben Ferguson Show," and David Sirota, a syndicated columnist and radio talk show host as well.

Gentlemen, welcome to both of you here. Right off the top...

DAVID SIROTA, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Good to be back.

BALDWIN: Good to have you.

Right off the top in 30 seconds, I want each of you to just explain your positions.

Ben, I defer to you first.

BEN FERGUSON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, I will say this.

I think what this boils down to is you have the people in California that decided they wanted marriage to stay traditional between one man and one woman, and that does not mean that they don't believe in civil unions and equal rights under the law, but the sanctity of marriage being between a man and a woman, they, the voters, did not want to redefine it and then open the door for it to continue to be redefined year after year, decade after decade.

And I think that's why even in California, a liberal state, they chose, the citizens chose to keep it the way that it is.

BALDWIN: OK, you say Californians spoke here.

David, 30 seconds, what is your stance?

SIROTA: Well, Southern states in the Confederacy spoke also back many years ago, saying that they wanted separate but equal for African- Americans and the white people. And the court struck that down because the court recognized that there is a constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

And if the government is going to be in the business of recognizing or not recognizing marriages, it should be in the business of extending the same exact identical protections to people regardless of their sexual orientation. End of story.

BALDWIN: OK. I want to start. There are a lot of arguments we could go through, guys. Let me just begin with this one. It was actually brought up by Justice Kennedy, talking about the children.

So, Ben, let me quote this.

FERGUSON: Yes.

BALDWIN: Quote: "There are some 40,000 children in California that live with same-sex parents. They want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important."

And that comes just about a week after the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed same-sex marriage, saying there is no evidence that it harms children in any way. Do you think that children should be brought into this discussion?

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: If you're coming from a doctor's perspective and a doctor says that they don't see any harm in children, I'm not claiming that if you are gay or lesbian that you're going to harm a child. I think it is pretty obvious what -- their conclusion there.

The issue is this. Can someone still have the same legal rights under the law without changing the definition of marriage? Because there is the other issue. Once you change it once -- and we know and the Supreme Court knows this better than anybody -- that once you make a change, you are opening up that definition to be changed continuously to any person that says, well, what about my group, what about my definition of what I believe marriage should be?

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: You missed the question. You can get into rights and that's a whole other argument, but when it comes to kids, should that be part of the discussion at this level, at the nation's highest court level? Is that pertinent?

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: I think you have to look at the actual -- what they're trying to decide. And what they're trying to decide is not what kids want to call mom and dad. They can call them mom and dad. What the court is looking at is not what the kids are asking for at the age of 6 or 7, because I doubt that many are asking for something. That is not what they're deciding at the court.

They're deciding should we redefine marriage and go against the voters of California, which, by the way, is not the South. It is California, a liberal state, and they say they want it to be one man, one woman.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: David, jump in.

SIROTA: Well, first of all, if you don't think 6- or 7-year-old kids are asking for something, it shows you're probably not a parent, because believe me kids at that age are asking and they're understanding what equal rights are and what equal rights are not.

I think the court should take that into account. But I think the country should take that into account, that we have to understand that...

FERGUSON: The country did.

SIROTA: ... the way our laws recognize people, the way our laws recognize people is a way for us to create or not create equality. There is no equality with separate but equal.

What Ben is arguing for is separate but equal, which is an inherently bigoted idea.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: But, also, if I can, to Ben's point...

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.

To Ben's point, a lot of the defenders of Prop 8, you know, would say, look, you look to the states. Why not -- even some of the justices sort of wondering aloud if they took this case too quickly and we will see if they move on it or not, but the fact that, you know, should this be a states issue? He has a point. A lot of people have a point, David Sirota.

SIROTA: Well, I don't -- no, but let me go back on that.

We had a country that 50, 60 years ago states had voted through their legislatures and created all sorts of laws to create separate but equal. And the court stepped in and said there is an inherent constitutional, national right to equal protection under the law. So I don't buy the states rights Armstrong because 60, 70 years ago, states rights was a clarion call for bigots, just as I think it is right now.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: OK.

BALDWIN: Ben Ferguson, respond. You have the last word.

FERGUSON: All right, let me say this; 41 states have decided they want to respect marriage being between a man and a woman and they're also very open to civil unions.

It is a brilliant ploy, what your other guest said. If you don't agree with me, and many on the left are saying this, many gay rights groups, then you're automatically a racist and a bigot, which is a great way to win your argument. But 41 states, including California, have decided that they're not going to allow people to continue to call them bigots just because they want to defend something that has been traditionally since the beginning of time between one man and one woman and they're willing to compromise.

I'm willing to compromise. I think civil unions are something that the people are in favor of.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: But hold on. But you call somebody like me a bigot because you don't want to respect any other viewpoint but your own, and therefore you say I'm a bigot because you have no respect for my marriage or tradition.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: David Sirota, are you calling Ben a bigot? Are we going there?

SIROTA: I said you were forwarding a bigoted idea. But I would say this, Ben.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: You might as well call me a bigot. I mean, let's be blunt.

SIROTA: Your argument is the same argument -- you would make the same argument that we should have respected states rights to keep separate but equal for African-Americans.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: No, I wouldn't have. Again, you're putting words in my mouth, trying to imply that I'm a racist.

(CROSSTALK)

SIROTA: Nobody would have made the same argument saying that we should have separate but equal for African-Americans, but it doesn't mean that the people who are pushing that are bigots. We all said, as a country, the people who said...

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, this just goes to show this is the perfect microcosm of the discussion and the argument that is happening today, not only in Washington, D.C., but I'm sure across lunch tables and dinner tables as to whether or not Prop 8 should be overturned, whether this is a states rights issue, whether this is constitutional or not.

We have to wait and see how the nation's highest court rules. That's not happening for another couple of months. In the meantime, thanks for the semi-polite discussion, David Sirota and Ben Ferguson. Guys, appreciate it. Thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Let me move on. Let me move on.

Amanda Knox's operatic drama has another act to go. For reasons it has not yet explained, the Italian Supreme Court issued a stunning reversal today of Knox's acquittal for murder. That means Knox will be tried yet again in Italy for the slaying of her roommate, Meredith Kercher. That was back in 2007, when both of these young women were exchange students.

Knox was 20 at the time. She was convicted of murder two years later. But she was freed. That was in 2011 when that conviction was overturned. Knox received today's news in Seattle, where she is now 25. Happens to have a book coming out about this whole ordeal next month.

Her attorney says the ruling is disappointing, but that the case against Amanda Knox has not gotten stronger.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED SIMON, ATTORNEY FOR AMANDA KNOX: While, yes, we would have preferred the Supreme Court to simply affirm the acquittal, and it certainly was painful for Amanda to receive this news, in the bigger picture, these charges still remain just as unfounded, just as unjust as they were before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Joining me now, from Seattle, is reporter Jeff Dubois of CNN affiliate KIRO.

Jeff, good to see you.

I know Amanda Knox has issued a statement calling the court's decision painful, her word, but vowing to fight on. I know she lives in Seattle. Has there been any reaction beyond that? Any sign of her?

JEFF DUBOIS, KIRO REPORTER: Well, just the statement from her and her family. They're expressing the same kind of concern, shock, surprise of this ruling.

Many people thought that this legal drama was over for Amanda Knox. But now the Supreme Court in Italy ruling that she needs to be retried,so it is here we go again. Amanda Knox is a student at the University of Washington, just finished the winter quarter at the U.W., is getting ready as you mentioned to release a book next month. Here are more chapters for maybe the next book, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Jeff Dubois, as we mentioned, that book coming out next month. What timing. Thank you so much for me in Seattle right now.

Want to make sure you saw this clip before we get into this. This is a clip from "Friday Night Lights." This is Buzz Bissinger. He's best known for writing the book that then inspired that hit show. Today, he's making some news for admitting to an addiction. Not talking gambling, not talking drugs, alcohol. Folks, I'm talking shopping. Talk about his habit here that cost him $600,000, just about, in three years.

In this feature article, it's quite a read, in "GQ," he admits he owns 81 leather jackets, 75 pairs of boots, 115 pairs of leather gloves, most of those from high-end fashion House Gucci.

Bissinger released the statement to NBC News saying he wrote the essay to help others currently struggling with addiction.

Let's talk about this. David Tolin is founder and director of The Anxiety Disorders Center at the Institute of Living. He's live with me from Hartford, Connecticut.

So, David, I tell you, I read this article, it was pretty juicy, and I then have to fess up first. My guilty pleasure is staying in really fancy hotels. When I take some time off, I like to take some time off. But how does it get to the point where, you know, like Buzz Bissinger, you're comparing buying clothes to the rush of a drug addict?

DAVID TOLIN, THE ANXIETY DISORDERS CENTER: Right.

Well, Brooke, buying things feels good. There is no denying it. And I think most of us are able to keep that into perspective. We're able to do some of it, but not to the point where it causes financial damage or gets in the way of the rest of our lives.

But just as some people can't control how they relate to food, to alcohol, to drugs, to gambling, there are some people who can't control how they buy things. They get so hooked on that good feeling that they lose control of their behavior.

BALDWIN: He is a 58-year-old husband, he's father of sons, he's a sports guy, talks in this article about sitting, you know, in the front row of the fashion week in Milan. Let me just quote part of what he says, in terms of breaking stereotypes.

"I received a package at least every other day and sometimes two or three or four. Because I ordered so much, I often forgot what was inside them. It added to the drama and the ritual."

David, drama and ritual. What kind of people tend to suffer from a shopping addiction?

TOLIN: I think what you see is people that get very hooked on the rush of getting something new.

It is not so much the owning that turns them on, it is the getting it. They feel good about having acquired it. They feel like it gives them a sense of status, it makes them better, it makes them cuter, it makes them funnier, sexier, whatever, and they get so hooked on feeling that way that they just start buying and buying and buying until they cause themselves some very real damage.

BALDWIN: So then how do you help someone?

TOLIN: Well, right now, there's a couple of ways we can address this.

There are some medications that do seem to reduce the urges to start buying things, that help people with impulse control. Another kind of treatment that we use a lot is called cognitive behavior therapy, which helps people learn to slow down how they relate to buying things and help them learn and practice new patterns of behavior.

BALDWIN: OK. David Tolin, I appreciate it very much. Buzz Bissinger, what a story in this magazine. Appreciate it.

Drones, they are not just for the U.S. government anymore. Farmers, journalists, even colleges just some of the groups getting in on this growing craze here of drones. Next, we're going to talk to a man who is working to develop the next big thing in drone technology. He will be in studio. We will ask him exactly what that is.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: It is the rise of the drones, the evolution and the power behind unmanned aircraft changing how we fight wars abroad, even how we live our lives here at home.

Well, now the Federal Aviation Administration has a new prediction. Listen to this. Over the next five years, nearly 8,000 commercial drones will be hovering high above our heads, and in the next 20 years, the number will more than triple.

Steve Justice is a director at the Georgia Centers of Innovation.

Good to see you.

STEVE JUSTICE, GEORGIA CENTERS OF INNOVATION: Great to be here.

BALDWIN: When I heard and read those numbers this morning from the FAA, and I'm not talking military usage, I'm talking other industries domestically in the United States, let's say over the course of the next 10 to 20 years, which industries do you see really, really tapping into drone technology?

JUSTICE: We believe that agriculture and public safety are going to be the first adopters of this technology.

And I will tell you why, because in agriculture, right now, they have what they call scouts. They go out and walk the fields, look for what is going on in the fields, seeing if there is infestation or if they need to water in certain areas. And when they find that, they can't pinpoint it because they're just walking it with a human being.

They have to spray or water the entire field. If we can fly a small helicopter drove over the field, they can pinpoint this area needs to be sprayed, this area needs to be watered. And so now you are going to spray the insecticide just on that area. You're going to spray water just on that area. That reduces the cost to the farmer, reduces the amount of pesticide, increases yields, and is a great deal for everybody involved.

BALDWIN: Public safety, how do you mean?

JUSTICE: Public safety, let's go back to Atlanta, back to November.

There was a helicopter that was searching for a lost child, and the helicopter crashed and it killed two police officers. That same mission could have been done with a helicopter UAV. And it could have done the same mission, found the lost child and if you would have lost the vehicle, ran into a telephone pole, something like that, you wouldn't have lost any lives.

And that's the main thing. We are able to do these missions at lower cost and less risk to the public.

BALDWIN: I know Congress, they have given the FAA until 2015 to come up with rules regulating the drones. I can't help but wonder how then do you, despite some of these rules, there are bad people out there with potentially nefarious purpose usage for drones. How do you keep someone from getting their hands on them or spying?

JUSTICE: Well, I have talked to legal experts and they say that all the laws that cover surveillance activities, aerial surveillance activities, those rules don't differentiate between man and unmanned vehicles.

So for the law-abiding citizens, it is very clear. If you can't do it with a manned vehicle, you can't do it with an unmanned vehicle. As far as folks that will get their hands on it and do nefarious things with them, it is the same as folks going out in a Cessna 172 and breaking the laws in that. There will be registration.

BALDWIN: Is it though -- isn't it easier to just get your hand on a drone? You don't have to have a pilot inside, you just pop it up in the air and, boom, there you go?

JUSTICE: It will be easier, but it will also be very noticed by the public. The same things that the public does now, they report an aircraft, take the registration number of it, things like that, and they report that, if they find perpetrators and prosecutes them to the full extent of the law. We will see those same sorts of things happening. BALDWIN: Finally, you talk about how you are looking for the next big thing.

Give me a look in the magic ball here of drone technology. What do you think is the next big thing?

JUSTICE: The things we're working on, especially here in the state of Georgia, are what we call sense and avoid, because you don't have a pilot in the UAV, you don't have eyes that can look out there and say, there is another airplane out there, we don't need to run into that.

We're developing technology so that UAV can sense the other airplanes and vehicles around it, it knows the rules of the road in the air and can take evasive action to miss another unmanned vehicle or a manned vehicle and that's the thing that will really enable UAVs in the national airspace.

BALDWIN: Steve Justice, director at the Georgia Centers of Innovation, appreciate it.

JUSTICE: Thank you very much.

BALDWIN: It's a fascinating technology. Thank you.

Question for you, you looking to save money on your next flight? Go on a diet. One economist says airlines should charge people based upon their weight. Is it legal? We're "On the Case" next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: How about this, you weigh more, you pay more? This is a suggestion coming from the economics professor in Norway. He says your weight should be factored into the price of a plane ticket. Why?

To cover the cost of extra fuel. You see, the heavier the plane, the more fuel it takes to move, the more it costs you and me. Here's part of the professor's so-called fat tax pricing. Total weight, this is how much you and your luggage weigh together. So, say you and your bags, you weigh a total of 240 pounds, you have to pay twice that of a passenger weighing in at 120 pounds with his or her bags.

But how would the airlines know how much you weigh? Passengers would have to declare it or possibly airlines would weigh passengers before boarding. That wouldn't be embarrassing or anything.

Kidding.

CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin.

Can you imagine? "On the Case" with me. I know, I know. But let me just ask, legally speaking, if this went through, would this even fly; would this be legal?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, actually, it would be. When I found out we were going to be talking about this, I did a lot of research because my first inclination was, oh, my gosh, you can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their weight.

Well, I found no federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their weight. And many people that are obese often tell me, you know, it is like the last form of discrimination that is OK. And I think that is probably right.

Right now at least federally, there are a couple of states and a couple of cities that have some protections, but across our country, it is OK still to discriminate against people by weight. I got to tell you, look at what happens to overweight passengers already. I looked at a bunch of the sort of policies of airlines, and if you are overweight on some airlines and you can't buckle your seat belt, you got to buy an extra seat.

If you're overweight and you can't put both of the arm rests down, you got to buy another seat. Many people are saying that's discriminatory. But guess what? Nothing really has been done about it, hasn't been challenged. I think that's where this is going. If this sort of policy starts popping up, then people are going to have to challenge it.

BALDWIN: We talked about this in the hot topics panel. People are on both sides of it. You know, some would say it seems discriminatory. That's interesting that you say it was sort of pass legal muster.

So if somebody -- if this were to go through and somebody were to say sue for discrimination, you're saying the policy would probably stand?

HOSTIN: I think it is possible.

I actually think it is possible. What is interesting to me, though, on a separate note, is let's say this kind of policy starts affecting one group. Let's say pregnant women are affected. Let's say African- Americans are more affected. Let's say the elderly are more affected.

I think, in a situation like that, people are going to -- courts are going to start looking at it. But right now, there is really no protection for our obese pals out there. And I just -- I wonder, wow, is that OK in our society?

BALDWIN: Can you imagine walking through metal detectors and then having to step on the scales? Boy.

HOSTIN: It would be horrifying. Actually, Brooke, that happened to me once. I flew like a little tiny flight to Cape Cod.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: That has happened to me as well on the teeny tiny planes.

HOSTIN: They made me get on it. Yes. I was like trying to hide it from my husband. I'm like, don't worry, don't worry.

BALDWIN: Don't look. Don't look.

(CROSSTALK) BALDWIN: You are fine, Sunny Hostin. You are just fine. Thank you so much "On the Case" with me today.

There could be a major breakthrough in the NFL. A player reportedly is thinking about coming out within the next couple of months. And it is not the reaction from his teammates, from within the locker room that is apparently making this decision so hard. We're going to talk to that reporter who uncovered that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)