Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Interview With Winnie Stachelberg, Richard Lessner

Aired June 26, 2003 - 15:13   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.


JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Two guests join me now to talk more about today's Supreme Court decision overturning state laws against gay sex. Winnie Stachelberg, she's the political director for the Human Rights Campaign. And Richard Lessner, he's a senior analyst at the Family Research Council. Thank you both for being here.
Richard Lessner, to you first. Does this now mean, this -- as a result of this ruling, that sex is always going to be a matter of privacy between two consenting adults?

RICHARD LESSNER, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, this is exactly what Justice Scalia said in his dissenting opinion. And he pointed out that because the majority did nothing and said nothing in this opinion to limit the scope of its decision, it means that all sexual arrangements between consenting adults are -- now fall within this area of privacy that the court invented some 30 years ago in the Griswold v. Connecticut case.

As so as he concluded, all state laws, which impinge upon issues like polygamy, bigamy, consensual incest and others, now apparently fall within these privacy rights.

WOODRUFF: Do you see it the same way?

WINNIE STACHELBERG, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: This is a great victory for gay and lesbian Americans. Now there is this right to privacy that we can do what others could do all the time.

But I think it also sends a tremendous signal and is a symbol of the progress that the gay and lesbian community has made and will continue to make with this historic ruling by the Supreme Court. The supreme law of the land sends a signal and I think helps usher in progress that we will see in days and decades to come.

WOODRUFF: But you're making a point, Richard Lessner, of saying it's much broader than that. That the result here is something that we should all be worried about? Is that what you're suggesting?

LESSNER: Well, you'll notice that Winnie didn't answer the question. The issue really goes to not necessarily privacy with regard to homosexuals. And because in the case of Texas, this was a law that except in cases of public lewdness was not enforced. Police were not kicking down doors of people into their bedrooms.

This goes into a much larger issue and that is is any law rooted in a moral vision which constrains such practices as polygamy, bigamy, incest and other sexual arrangements among consenting human beings that are constrained by moral concerns? Are those now subject to review and perhaps being found unconstitutional? Scalia suggests absolutely.

STACHELBERG: I think what this does -- and Justice O'Connor said it and Justice Kennedy said it in the concurring opinion and the majority opinion -- that there is a right to privacy that not just some Americans have access to, but all Americans, including gay and lesbian Americans. And that's big and that's bold and that signals, I think, progress to come. Very, very important for all of us to enjoy that right. It now puts intangible ways, something that was abstract, the Constitution for gay people.

WOODRUFF: But you have -- let me just come back to you, Richard. You have in Justice Kennedy saying the petitioners are entitled to respect to their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.

LESSNER: Well, you can say the same thing of prostitution or polygamy. If a man wants to marry three women, that's a private, consensual decision. So why would we prescribe that in law? This is really where we're heading with this. And that's really the agenda, the political agenda that nobody wants to talk about. They want to couch this in terms of privacy.

One other thing.

(CROSSTALK)

LESSNER: Most Americans probably believe that somewhere in the Constitution there's a right to privacy. I defy you to find that right. It's not. You know where it came from? The court said it came from emanations issuing from the penumbras words around the words. That's how they found a right to privacy. It exists nowhere in the Constitution.

WOODRUFF: I want to come back to something Justice Scalia said, to Winnie Stachelberg. And that is he said, "The court has largely," he said, "signed onto the so-called 'homosexual agenda.'" He said, "The court has taken has taken sides in the culture war."

STACHELBERG: You know, Judy, if the gay agenda is protecting families, ensuring that we can be moms and dads and brothers and sisters and coworkers and faith-going people, then yes, I suppose the Supreme Court today has signed on to that agenda.

But I think that's an agenda that most Americans would agree is an agenda we ought to embark on together. This is about working together, this is about gay and lesbian Americans being part of this American fabric and this American nation. And I think the Supreme Court today, in this decision, does exactly that -- opens up those possibilities to all of us.

WOODRUFF: We're going to have to leave it there. Winnie Stachelberg with the Human Rights Campaign, Richard Lessner with the Family Research Council. Thank you very much. It's good to see both of you. We appreciate you coming by. Thank you.

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 June 26, 2003 - 15:13   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Two guests join me now to talk more about today's Supreme Court decision overturning state laws against gay sex. Winnie Stachelberg, she's the political director for the Human Rights Campaign. And Richard Lessner, he's a senior analyst at the Family Research Council. Thank you both for being here.
Richard Lessner, to you first. Does this now mean, this -- as a result of this ruling, that sex is always going to be a matter of privacy between two consenting adults?

RICHARD LESSNER, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, this is exactly what Justice Scalia said in his dissenting opinion. And he pointed out that because the majority did nothing and said nothing in this opinion to limit the scope of its decision, it means that all sexual arrangements between consenting adults are -- now fall within this area of privacy that the court invented some 30 years ago in the Griswold v. Connecticut case.

As so as he concluded, all state laws, which impinge upon issues like polygamy, bigamy, consensual incest and others, now apparently fall within these privacy rights.

WOODRUFF: Do you see it the same way?

WINNIE STACHELBERG, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: This is a great victory for gay and lesbian Americans. Now there is this right to privacy that we can do what others could do all the time.

But I think it also sends a tremendous signal and is a symbol of the progress that the gay and lesbian community has made and will continue to make with this historic ruling by the Supreme Court. The supreme law of the land sends a signal and I think helps usher in progress that we will see in days and decades to come.

WOODRUFF: But you're making a point, Richard Lessner, of saying it's much broader than that. That the result here is something that we should all be worried about? Is that what you're suggesting?

LESSNER: Well, you'll notice that Winnie didn't answer the question. The issue really goes to not necessarily privacy with regard to homosexuals. And because in the case of Texas, this was a law that except in cases of public lewdness was not enforced. Police were not kicking down doors of people into their bedrooms.

This goes into a much larger issue and that is is any law rooted in a moral vision which constrains such practices as polygamy, bigamy, incest and other sexual arrangements among consenting human beings that are constrained by moral concerns? Are those now subject to review and perhaps being found unconstitutional? Scalia suggests absolutely.

STACHELBERG: I think what this does -- and Justice O'Connor said it and Justice Kennedy said it in the concurring opinion and the majority opinion -- that there is a right to privacy that not just some Americans have access to, but all Americans, including gay and lesbian Americans. And that's big and that's bold and that signals, I think, progress to come. Very, very important for all of us to enjoy that right. It now puts intangible ways, something that was abstract, the Constitution for gay people.

WOODRUFF: But you have -- let me just come back to you, Richard. You have in Justice Kennedy saying the petitioners are entitled to respect to their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.

LESSNER: Well, you can say the same thing of prostitution or polygamy. If a man wants to marry three women, that's a private, consensual decision. So why would we prescribe that in law? This is really where we're heading with this. And that's really the agenda, the political agenda that nobody wants to talk about. They want to couch this in terms of privacy.

One other thing.

(CROSSTALK)

LESSNER: Most Americans probably believe that somewhere in the Constitution there's a right to privacy. I defy you to find that right. It's not. You know where it came from? The court said it came from emanations issuing from the penumbras words around the words. That's how they found a right to privacy. It exists nowhere in the Constitution.

WOODRUFF: I want to come back to something Justice Scalia said, to Winnie Stachelberg. And that is he said, "The court has largely," he said, "signed onto the so-called 'homosexual agenda.'" He said, "The court has taken has taken sides in the culture war."

STACHELBERG: You know, Judy, if the gay agenda is protecting families, ensuring that we can be moms and dads and brothers and sisters and coworkers and faith-going people, then yes, I suppose the Supreme Court today has signed on to that agenda.

But I think that's an agenda that most Americans would agree is an agenda we ought to embark on together. This is about working together, this is about gay and lesbian Americans being part of this American fabric and this American nation. And I think the Supreme Court today, in this decision, does exactly that -- opens up those possibilities to all of us.

WOODRUFF: We're going to have to leave it there. Winnie Stachelberg with the Human Rights Campaign, Richard Lessner with the Family Research Council. Thank you very much. It's good to see both of you. We appreciate you coming by. Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com