Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Saturday
Interview With Patrick Guerriero, Genevieve Wood
Aired November 22, 2003 - 18:12 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: At least one member of the Massachusetts bar liked the state's Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage, an opinion that is not popular in our latest poll numbers as you can see -- 61 percent saying gay marriage should not be recognized as valid by law. Joining me to discuss the ruling and its fallout Genevieve Wood and Patrick Guerriero Ms. Wood is with the Family Research Council, a culturally and socially conservative group. Mr. Guerriero is a Log Cabin Republican, a group for gay Republicans. Good afternoon to both of you.
PATRICK GUERRIERO, LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS: Good to be here.
GENEVIEVE WOOD, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Good afternoon.
LIN: Genevieve, let me begin with you. What makes you think that eventually there is going to be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages?
WOOD: Well, I think because of what happened in Massachusetts this last week and what you saw happen over the summer at the Supreme Court in the Texas v. Lawrence, increasingly what you are seeing is the people aren't having a say on this. You have in this case four judges who see it this way and decided, well, we think same sex marriage is a good idea, so we are going to put that out to the people of Massachusetts, even though the people in that state overwhelmingly oppose it.
And the problem Carol is that it won't just happen in Massachusetts. The couple gets married there and then goes to Missouri or goes to California and ask that state to recognize it. Even though those states may have a defensive marriage law in the books that will end up in the courts and we will see it fought out. And I think that is why you are already seeing a move in Congress, and hopefully President Bush to call for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a man and a woman.
LIN: But the fact of the matter is, the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican is against it. He says it is going to alienate moderates.
WOOD: Well, that wasn't what I read Tom DeLay just right after the decision. He said that, first of all, he thinks the defensive marriage law that we have on the books is a good start. But he realizes that the courts could overturn that. If that is the case, he will be in favor of a constitutional amendment.
LIN: Patrick, what do you make of this? Do you think there needs to be a constitutional amendment?
GUERRIERO: Of course not, we don't rewrite the sacred U.S. constitution when we are in the middle of an emotional national debate about a very serious issue. If Genevieve is really concerned about protecting traditional marriage. I suggest she offer a constitutional amendment to ban divorce or to ban fidelity. Those are the real issues that impact too many families in America. And the fact of the matter is that today in our great nation there are gay and lesbian Americans who pay taxes, follow the laws, are active in their religious communities, give back to their communities, and all they want is to live in stable recognized relationships with all the responsibilities thereof.
LIN: Will there be consequences if a constitutional amendment is called for by the Republican Party and the White House?
GUERRIERO: Absolutely. The far right has been demanding and calling for a cultural war within American and a civil war within the party. That has been their agenda. They haven't had an issue like this since Roe v. Wade. And the fact is ...
WOOD: Patrick, that is not true and you know it.
GUERRIERO: ... most of the country is worried about Medicare, the war on terrorism, homeland security and who won college football games today. And they all value all ...
WOOD: Well, let me tell you something. I would agree that a lot of Americans don't want to be concerned about same sex marriage. The problem is it is being forced upon them. No where where this has ever come up in a state has it ever been the people of that state who have asked for it. It has only been when a judge or a panel of judges comes in and asks for it. And the fact is when you look at it, I mean, it is not just Republicans. It is not just conservatives when you look at the majority of Republicans, the majority of Independents, even the majority of Democrats oppose same sex marriage. I think Patrick and other homosexual organizations don't' want this to become an issue.
But, unfortunately, the court has put the six-month time limit out there, that six months will come up in June. It will be right in the middle of the presidential primaries. I don't think it is possible to suggest that this isn't going to be a major issue. And every time this comes up, more and more Americans come out saying they are against it.
GUERRIERO: This questions, as you know Genevieve, I am a former Massachusetts legislator and mayor probably will be put on the ballot in 2006. And what will happen is over the next two years people will recognize as they did in Vermont when you let people have stable, loving families and you give them the responsibilities thereof it is a good thing. And I believe in the end this will have to go to the ballot, the people will speak. And in the end, as the country works through this, people will realize that there are more important things to do than to mark up the American constitution to marginalize a segment of the American family who simply wants to live in a lifelong loving relationships. We have better priorities.
LIN: So Genevieve, something short of a constitutional amendment, if it does go to the ballot box would you then accept the results of that election?
WOOD: Well, I think what the majority of Americans are increasingly as this debate takes public stage, what you are seeing happen, is that it is not that Americans are intolerant. They believe that Patrick can live with whoever he wants to. The question is whether or not the public and the government have to put a public stamp of approval on it. That is the question. And a lot of American say, you know what, we don't put a public stamp of approval on that. And we don't think it's intolerant to suggest that what the government ought to be interested in doing is making sure every child has a mom and a dad. If the government is really interested in what is best for society, that is what it ought to be trying to promote. And I think that's what most Americans are seeing.
LIN: Patrick, you have the last 15 seconds.
GUERRIERO: We are talking about civil marriage licenses, not breaking down any religious institutions or religious freedoms. The American people will grapple with this issue. And over the course of the next several years we will figure out a way to make it work.
LIN: All right, Patrick Guerriero, thank you very much, with the Log Cabin Republicans. Genevieve Wood with the Family Research Council, all opinions welcome here on CNN. Thanks much.
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 November 22, 2003 - 18:12 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: At least one member of the Massachusetts bar liked the state's Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage, an opinion that is not popular in our latest poll numbers as you can see -- 61 percent saying gay marriage should not be recognized as valid by law. Joining me to discuss the ruling and its fallout Genevieve Wood and Patrick Guerriero Ms. Wood is with the Family Research Council, a culturally and socially conservative group. Mr. Guerriero is a Log Cabin Republican, a group for gay Republicans. Good afternoon to both of you.
PATRICK GUERRIERO, LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS: Good to be here.
GENEVIEVE WOOD, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Good afternoon.
LIN: Genevieve, let me begin with you. What makes you think that eventually there is going to be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages?
WOOD: Well, I think because of what happened in Massachusetts this last week and what you saw happen over the summer at the Supreme Court in the Texas v. Lawrence, increasingly what you are seeing is the people aren't having a say on this. You have in this case four judges who see it this way and decided, well, we think same sex marriage is a good idea, so we are going to put that out to the people of Massachusetts, even though the people in that state overwhelmingly oppose it.
And the problem Carol is that it won't just happen in Massachusetts. The couple gets married there and then goes to Missouri or goes to California and ask that state to recognize it. Even though those states may have a defensive marriage law in the books that will end up in the courts and we will see it fought out. And I think that is why you are already seeing a move in Congress, and hopefully President Bush to call for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a man and a woman.
LIN: But the fact of the matter is, the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican is against it. He says it is going to alienate moderates.
WOOD: Well, that wasn't what I read Tom DeLay just right after the decision. He said that, first of all, he thinks the defensive marriage law that we have on the books is a good start. But he realizes that the courts could overturn that. If that is the case, he will be in favor of a constitutional amendment.
LIN: Patrick, what do you make of this? Do you think there needs to be a constitutional amendment?
GUERRIERO: Of course not, we don't rewrite the sacred U.S. constitution when we are in the middle of an emotional national debate about a very serious issue. If Genevieve is really concerned about protecting traditional marriage. I suggest she offer a constitutional amendment to ban divorce or to ban fidelity. Those are the real issues that impact too many families in America. And the fact of the matter is that today in our great nation there are gay and lesbian Americans who pay taxes, follow the laws, are active in their religious communities, give back to their communities, and all they want is to live in stable recognized relationships with all the responsibilities thereof.
LIN: Will there be consequences if a constitutional amendment is called for by the Republican Party and the White House?
GUERRIERO: Absolutely. The far right has been demanding and calling for a cultural war within American and a civil war within the party. That has been their agenda. They haven't had an issue like this since Roe v. Wade. And the fact is ...
WOOD: Patrick, that is not true and you know it.
GUERRIERO: ... most of the country is worried about Medicare, the war on terrorism, homeland security and who won college football games today. And they all value all ...
WOOD: Well, let me tell you something. I would agree that a lot of Americans don't want to be concerned about same sex marriage. The problem is it is being forced upon them. No where where this has ever come up in a state has it ever been the people of that state who have asked for it. It has only been when a judge or a panel of judges comes in and asks for it. And the fact is when you look at it, I mean, it is not just Republicans. It is not just conservatives when you look at the majority of Republicans, the majority of Independents, even the majority of Democrats oppose same sex marriage. I think Patrick and other homosexual organizations don't' want this to become an issue.
But, unfortunately, the court has put the six-month time limit out there, that six months will come up in June. It will be right in the middle of the presidential primaries. I don't think it is possible to suggest that this isn't going to be a major issue. And every time this comes up, more and more Americans come out saying they are against it.
GUERRIERO: This questions, as you know Genevieve, I am a former Massachusetts legislator and mayor probably will be put on the ballot in 2006. And what will happen is over the next two years people will recognize as they did in Vermont when you let people have stable, loving families and you give them the responsibilities thereof it is a good thing. And I believe in the end this will have to go to the ballot, the people will speak. And in the end, as the country works through this, people will realize that there are more important things to do than to mark up the American constitution to marginalize a segment of the American family who simply wants to live in a lifelong loving relationships. We have better priorities.
LIN: So Genevieve, something short of a constitutional amendment, if it does go to the ballot box would you then accept the results of that election?
WOOD: Well, I think what the majority of Americans are increasingly as this debate takes public stage, what you are seeing happen, is that it is not that Americans are intolerant. They believe that Patrick can live with whoever he wants to. The question is whether or not the public and the government have to put a public stamp of approval on it. That is the question. And a lot of American say, you know what, we don't put a public stamp of approval on that. And we don't think it's intolerant to suggest that what the government ought to be interested in doing is making sure every child has a mom and a dad. If the government is really interested in what is best for society, that is what it ought to be trying to promote. And I think that's what most Americans are seeing.
LIN: Patrick, you have the last 15 seconds.
GUERRIERO: We are talking about civil marriage licenses, not breaking down any religious institutions or religious freedoms. The American people will grapple with this issue. And over the course of the next several years we will figure out a way to make it work.
LIN: All right, Patrick Guerriero, thank you very much, with the Log Cabin Republicans. Genevieve Wood with the Family Research Council, all opinions welcome here on CNN. Thanks much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
