Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Indiana Court Upholds School Vouchers; Petraeus Apologies for Affair; Supreme Court Weighs Same-Sex Marriage; Dionne Warwick Files for Bankruptcy
Aired March 27, 2013 - 10:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Thanks so much for being with us. I'm Carol Costello.
Checking our "Top Stories." It's 30 minutes past the hour. North Korea says it's cutting off a key military hotline with the South. It's a line to an industrial complex. This is just the latest sign of rising tensions between the two countries. The North says it's already put its military units on combat-ready status.
Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing more arguments on the issue of same-sex marriage. These are live pictures from outside the court. Today's focus is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. That defines marriage is between a man and a woman and it effectively (inaudible) several benefits like tax breaks, Social Security payments and family leave do not apply to gay and lesbian couples even if they're married. President Bill Clinton signed that law back in 1996, but he said recently he's changed his mind. He says it's now unconstitutional.
In Indiana, the state Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the state's Tuition Voucher Program and that could mean big changes for the rest of the country. The Indiana program is unique because it's not limited to just students in failing public schools. Any Indiana student who meets income guidelines can take advantage of it and use public money to attend private schools.
Poppy Harlow is on the story. Good morning Poppy.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. Well the -- the central argument here that the plaintiffs were trying to make in front of the state's highest court is that this is an unconstitutional program. They say it violates the separation between church and state. That it severely damages public schools.
You know when you look at the Indiana State Constitution, it clearly says that no state money can be used for any religious organization. Well, the plaintiffs here said that giving these students up to $4,500 each to attend a private school violated that because an overwhelming majority of the kids in this program are going to religious schools. Well, the high court unanimously disagreed with that. I want to read you part of their statement. They said, quote, "We find that the only direct beneficiaries of the school voucher program are the participating parents and their children and not religious schools."
Now, the state superintendent was very vocal in her opposition to this. The governor on the other hand of Indiana, Governor Pence has widely and broadly supported this. He actually wants to expand the program. But when you look at legislators in the state, they're very divided on this issue. And I want you to listen to two of them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN BOSMA (R), INDIANA HOUSE SPEAKER: It's a victory for Hoosier kids, the 90 -- 400 children that these families have exercised the school scholarship to attend a school choice --
KREG BATTLE (D), INDIANA STATE HOUSE: We literally have schools picking their students rather than students picking their schools and I think it flies in the face of the Indiana Constitution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: So for all of our viewers not in the state of Indiana or who thinks why does this matter to me, this is a much bigger issue because this could set case law that could really have ripple effect across the nation.
This morning, I talked to our Supreme Court expert Jeff Toobin about just how big this decision in Indiana really is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FEFF TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The Indiana case goes to the heart of the separation of church and state. Is Indiana, through this program, essentially giving money to church schools? Historically, that has been unconstitutional. Today, it's a lot less clear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: Also, Carol, what's important here is when you look at Indiana, it has the broadest school voucher programs. So it's not just limited to low-income families. It also goes to middle class families and it could get expanded. There's actually a vote there today to expand the program. And right now, there's a cap on how many students in Indiana can apply for these vouchers. That cap of 15,000 goes away after the next school year.
So opponents of this that I talked to, are very worried that more and more kids will join this program. And they'll get the vouchers and that will mean less and less per pupil funding like what you see on your screen for public schools. They're worried about that. Colorado, Louisiana, their Supreme Courts in the middle of this debate as well.
So I asked one of the opponents of this, the head of the teachers union in Indiana, what are you going to do, because this is the law of the land. She said, we'll -- we'll try to convince parents to keep their kids in public schools. And we'll try to convince the legislature to set aside separate money for this voucher program, not take away from public schools -- Carol.
COSTELLO: Poppy Harlow, thanks so much.
For the first time, General David Petraeus is talking about the sex scandal that brought down his illustrious career. Hear what he had to say next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: This morning, we're hearing from a man who was once one of Washington's most respected leaders. He's apologizing for the sex scandal that ruined his career. As a Four Star Army General, David Petraeus once ran the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before being unanimously confirmed as the Director of the CIA.
His downfall was swift and breath taking. Petraeus announced his resignation and acknowledge an extramarital affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell. Last night, Petraeus opened a rare public appearance with a very personal apology.
Our Casey Wian has more for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Retired General David Petraeus picked a receptive audience to launch his comeback from the sex scandal that cost him his job at the CIA and his reputation with the military.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID PETRAEUS, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: So please allow me to begin my remarks this evening by reiterating how deeply I regret and apologize for the circumstances that led to my resignation from the CIA and caused such pain for my family, friends and supporters.
WIAN: Supporters warrant were abundant Petraeus was a Four-Star General who commanded American forces during the surge in Iraq. He also wrote the field manual for how U.S. troops fight insurgents.
PETRAEUS: I join you keenly aware that I'm regarded different light now than I was a year ago. I'm also keenly aware that the reason for my recent journey was my own doing.
WIAN: His undoing was an affair with Paula Broadwell the woman who co-authored his biography. Both were married. It came as a shock to many when an FBI investigation into an unrelated matter uncovered his relationship with Broadwell.
He resigned as CIA director three days after President Obama was re- elected. And ten days before he testified about the attack on the U.S. embassy on Benghazi. Now Petraeus has re-entered the public stage and is reported to be talking to potential employers. DAN MCGINN, IMAGE CONSULTANT: General Petraeus is an enormously gifted, talented guy. He had a great career. He can have a great career going forward. He's going to navigate through this the right way; it looks like he's starting in the right direction.
PETRAEUS: I know that I can never fully assuage the pain that I inflicted on those closest to me and on the number of others. I can, however, try to move forward and as best possible to make amends to those I have hurt.
WIAN (on camera): Chief among them, his wife Holly who did not attend Petraeus' speech.
The event was sponsored by USC which has longstanding ties to the military yet is located comfortably across the continent from the CIA and the Pentagon. Journalists attending the event were kept nearly as far away from the general.
Casey Wian, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: Coming up next, "Talk Back", thousands descend on Washington as the U.S. Supreme Court tackles same-sex marriage. Will this be an historic step forward? Or are the justices looking for a way out? Could they punt? We'll talk.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: The Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Clinton and now before the U.S. Supreme Court, as the justices weigh the issue of marriage equality. But was the stage already set during the debate over California's Prop 8, the law which bans same-sex marriage? A few of the justices hinting that it may be too early for them to take up the issue.
Joining me now CNN contributor and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona; along with CNN contributor and Republican strategist Ana Navarro. Welcome to you both.
MARIA CARDONA, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good morning Carol.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good morning Carol.
COSTELLO: Good morning.
So expectations among gay rights advocates might be a little dampened this morning after some remarks yesterday by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The liberal judge questioning whether the court was deciding this issue too soon and asking why not let the continue to experiment with same-sex marriage and figure out where it wants to go.
What does that mean to you, Maria Cardona?
CARDONA: Well, I think first of all, Carol, it would have been a lot easier to bet and win on who the next pope was going to be, than try to figure out what the Supreme Court is going to do in terms of deciding this case. But I will say this, Justice Sotomayor is nothing if not methodical. And she often takes positions that are contrary even to her own to play devil's advocate and make sure that every single angle of this case is being debated.
I would not read anything in she's saying. Frankly, I wouldn't read anything into what a lot of them are saying. You know, a lot of folks were wrong when they tried to figure out what the Supreme Court was going to say on the health care case.
COSTELLO: Yes, but Sotomayor's comments, they sound pretty reasonable. I mean you could argue that the country is still experimenting. You know, only blue states have made same-sex marriage legal. 38 states have banned same-sex marriage. Six states allow civil unions. If you look at those numbers, the country is still experimenting. So why should the U.S. Supreme Court decide this now, Ana?
NAVARRO: Yes, sure, the country is still experimenting and there are some states that have evolved and shifted on this a lot faster and further than some others. But also what we've seen in poll after poll is that this is not going back. There's not going back here, where there's no praying away the gay, like it or not, the gay is here to stay.
We're not going to dissolve these gay families. Gay couples are not going to go back into the closet. The only people who continue living in the closet these days are the hardliners against gay marriage.
And so look, if it's not now, it is going to be later. This is not about if it's ever going to be legal, it's about when it's going to be legal. And I would argue that regardless of what happens in the Supreme Court, it's already made great strides.
And this process has been very helpful to the movement of gay marriage and equality because this forced people to think about the issue. And you can see, the exponential growth in approval numbers for gay marriage as people wrap their arms around the issue and really give it some serious analytical thought and realize that you're talking about two loving adults who are being treated in a way that's unequal to other American citizens who are heterosexual.
COSTELLO: Ok. Many of the comments that the justices made were so interesting. I want to play some more for our audience and then talk about it.
Separately, the Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito seemed to question the impact of Prop 8 on the definition of marriage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend. But it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that's it seems to me what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. All you're interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.
SAMUEL ALITO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in the Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: Brings up a couple of points many people believe are important points. Like what are the effects of same-sex marriage? Not only on traditional marriage, but on children? Maria?
CARDONA: Well, you know, with all due respect to Chief Justice Roberts, I think his argument is flawed because I think that -- that argument would be valid if you're actually saying that you are forcing a heterosexual person to marry somebody who's gay. But just by letting gay couples marry, that doesn't affect my heterosexual marriage to my husband in any way whatsoever.
And I will also say that, you know, Carol, the country is going in this direction. So maybe not all states are there yet. But majorities of Americans do agree that this is where the country is going, and that people should not be treated differently just because they love somebody of the same sex.
And I'd also argue that it took a Supreme Court to outlaw interracial marriage. It took the Supreme Court to desegregate our schools. It took a president signing emancipation proclamation to outlaw slavery and that took the country to a civil war. So it really doesn't matter whether the whole country is there yet. It's the right thing to do.
COSTELLO: Some legal analysts, Ana, say it sure sounds that the U.S. justices, all of them, don't really want to make a decision on this issue just yet. They're kind of ready to punt. If they do punt, what does that mean for the gay rights movement?
NAVARRO: I've got to comes to (inaudible), you're completely losing when you start using football metaphors. But let's say that they postpone then you know, you're just doing that, you're postponing. Because the issues are not going to go away.
Here is the bottom line, folks. Let's be realistic. There are gay couples living in marriage-like situations all over this nation, whether legal or not. There are gay families raising children in loving environments all over this country, whether we agree with it or not. These issues are not going to go away. We cannot take a magic eraser and dissolve those families.
So the issue will keep coming up again and again. Are we as a nation ready to tell those children that their family should have less recognition than a heterosexual family. This is a country where the courts have often focused on what is in the best interest of the children. And certainly, nobody can argue that it is in the best interest of the children of gay couples to be in families that are not legally recognized and that do not have the same legal rights as heterosexual parents. So let's just face the fact and the reality that we're not going back to the last century. That we are now moving forward and that this will continue to happen and the issues will continue arising and leading to legal challenges.
COSTELLO: All right. We'll see what happens today. Ana Navarro, Maria Cardona, thanks so much.
CARDONA: Thank you, Carol.
NAVARRO: Thank you.
COSTELLO: One of the biggest singers from the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s is filing for bankruptcy, Dionne Warwick? I think it's time to say a little prayer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: News that Dionne Warwick is broke. We're talking $10 million in debt.
(MUSIC)
COSTELLO: Oh, this makes me so sad, A.J. Hammer. I mean how did this happen?
A.J. HAMMER, HLN HOST: Yes, I mean it does seem crazy, Carol, when somebody has been around as long as Dionne Warwick has and has had so many hits for them to get into this situation. She had 31 hit songs between 1963 and 1987 alone. But according to her bankruptcy filing, she's down to just a thousand bucks in cash. And she lists her total assets of just $25,500 and that consists primarily of two fur coats and two sets of diamond earrings valued at $13,000.
Now, she does still make some money. She's pulling in about $20,000 a month. Although, her monthly expenses are reportedly $20,000. So no savings going on there. On the debt side, she's got a tax bill of $7 million for Uncle Sam, $3 million to the state of California and another $500,000 to a business manager. So you know, at $20,000 a month that will take Dionne roughly 500 months to pay off, forgetting what she needs to live on.
She says that this is all the result of several years of negligent and gross financial mismanagement from the late '80s to the mid-1990s. Her publicist explained in a statement that the problems have just snowballed saying that Dionne has repeatedly tried to make repayment offers and plans and proposals to the IRS and also to the California tax board for the money that she owed. The plans weren't accepted.
So what happens is, the interest and the penalties continue to accrue. It's not about the amount of back taxes she actually owes largely here, Carol, it's all these penalties and this interest. And this is actually pretty common among Hollywood stars who get into this situation. It's not the money that they initially owed. But things just keep piling up and snowballing just like they have been for Dionne. She's still out there on tour make something money. Hopefully she'll be able to get herself back on steady footing. But this is not an uncommon situation. It's just sad to see.
COSTELLO: I can't imagine the penalties on owing $10 million in taxes. It's just mind-boggling.
HAMMER: Yes.
COSTELLO: Our best to her though.
A.J. Hammer, thank you very much.
HAMMER: You got it.
COSTELLO: Ahead in the next hour of CNN NEWSROOM, the Jodi Arias trial has been going on for nearly three months. Is it too much for the jury? We'll talk to our legal experts.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Thank you so much for joining me today. I'm Carol Costello. CNN NEWSROOM continues right now.
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Carol.
Hi, everybody. I'm Ashleigh Banfield.
And we are about midway through a second straight day of Supreme Court arguments over marriage. Who can enter into it? Which rights and benefits follow from it? And who can defend so-called traditional marriage when you walk into a courtroom?
Today the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is being challenged by an elderly New York woman --
