GAY MARRIAGE

	February 13, 2004
	Legislators and courts in several states are debating whether same-sex couples may legally marry. Ray Suarez gets two perspectives on the issue from Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage and Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign. Background Discussion

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has our same-sex marriage story. SPOKESPERSON: All God's children should be equal under the eyes of the law. RAY SUAREZ: After struggling through two days of heated debate over the question of same sex marriage, Massachusetts legislators adjourned their constitutional convention in gridlock last night. State legislators had convened in a joint session for the last two days considering a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. Political demand for the amendment grew last week after the state's highest court ruled that same-sex marriages must be permitted, beginning on May 17. The court said that Massachusetts' constitution guarantees homosexual couples the same rights to marriage enjoyed by heterosexuals and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." That ruling led to a heated political debate this week both outside and inside the statehouse. Opponents of same sex marriage argued in favor of a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to that between a man and a woman. Some, such as Rep. Paul Loscocco, argued this week the state court had overstepped its bounds. REP. PAUL LOSCOCCO: The issue really before us today is no less than our representative form of government versus judicial tyranny. Today the subject matter of the court infringement relates to the people's right to define marriage. However, we should all consider that if left unchecked what rights the court will continue to usurp tomorrow. RAY SUAREZ: Variations on the original amendment were also offered as compromises, some offering stronger protections for civil unions, which provide some legal benefits and protections, but often are not transferable outside a given state. Sharp disagreements were heard on the floor. MARIE PARENTE: Mother Nature left her blueprint behind, and she left it in the DNA of a man and a woman. You know, I didn't create that combo; Mother Nature did. The statute of marriage was created to give statutory protection of a family unit, to protect a man and a woman and the child they would create. RAY SUAREZ: But state Sen. Jarrett Barrios, who is gay and recently adopted two boys with his partner, said gays and lesbians needed the legal benefits of marriage. He described the problems he encountered when trying to get medical attention for his 7-year-old son with a high fever. JARRETT BARRIOS: I reached a nurse at the hospital, and I started going into his symptoms. I told him the name and he said to me, are you the parent? I said my name is Jared. I'm the parent. The parent we had listed is Doug Hataway. That's my partner I said. But we don't have you listed. Are you married? You aren't. What ensued seemed like an eternity. When my child had 104.5 fever and I admit I was a new parent, I thought as many new parents thought, he could die on my watch while I was fighting with a nurse over whether I was his parent or not. RAY SUAREZ: Sen. Dianne Wilkerson argued it was a civil rights issue for her gay constituents. SEN. DIANNE WILKERSON: I can assure you I know them; they feel; they care; they love; and they are deserving, and I say again that this is a civil rights issue. RAY SUAREZ: In the end, neither side prevailed, and the meeting was adjourned till March 11. Overall, 38 states have passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Last Friday, Ohio enacted one of the most restrictive measures, refusing benefits such as health insurance to unwed partners of state workers, gay or not. Only four states offer legal recognition of some kind for gay couples. In a surprise move yesterday, the city of San Francisco began granting marriage licenses to gay couples in defiance of California state law. Today more than 300 couples were lining up at city hall and filling out forms. Opponents sought a restraining order. At the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as between a man and a woman and says states need not recognize the marriage laws of other states. President Bush has sent some signals, initially during his state of the union speech, that he might back a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. RAY SUAREZ: The White House said this week it is still reviewing its options. For more I'm joined by Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy group, and Matt Daniels, president of Alliance for Marriage, an organization that supports a federal amendment banning gay marriage. Matt Daniels, hundreds of marriages in California over the last two days. Ohio, unequivocally slamming the door. Massachusetts deadlocked for the moment. The events are coming fast and furious. What effect has this had on your efforts to block gay marriage nationwide? MATT DANIELS: Well, the big picture here is that the battle, as we've said for years, will ultimately be decided nationally and in constitutional terms, regardless of the flurry of activity you see in San Francisco, for example. The real action politically will be at the level of some sort of national standard for marriage which, inevitably, if you understand the dynamic -- dynamics in the courts will be constitutional by the American people amending the Constitution to protect what they believe is the commonsense understanding of marriage: the unions of the two halves of the human race joining together. RAY SUAREZ: And Cheryl Jacques, what impact has this had on your efforts to make marriage available to homosexual people? CHERYL JACQUES: It's helping to educate the country. I think Massachusetts and San Francisco will play a very important role in helping Americans understand that when gay couples get married and when they have basic protections like the right to each other's health insurance in the workplace, the right to collect Social Security survivor benefits upon their death, I know I pay into that system but I will never receive those benefits for my family because of discriminatory laws. What Massachusetts and San Francisco are going to help the country understand is that when these couples get married, they're more safe, they're more secure, their families are stronger and that's wonderful. And for the vast majority of Americans, absolutely nothing will change. They will be like any other day. Their life will be normal. They'll raise their children and drive to work and so forth. They're just going to get it. They're going to get when the family next door is made safer next door, they're not harmed in any way and the family next door is stronger and that's a good thing. RAY SUAREZ: Most recently, the Massachusetts high court reaffirmed its earlier ruling saying that no other version of marriage was going to cut the mustard constitutionally as far as they could see as far as marriage itself. Can you see any way between now and May 17, that any roadblocks could be put in the way of gay people starting to get married in the state of Massachusetts in May? CHERYL JACQUES: I don't see that. And good for the court, and let's remember what the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts did. These are not activist judges. These are judges who looked at a very simple document, our Constitution that says all people shall be treated equally under the law. They then said to the state, tell me why these families can't take care of one another, why they can't have health insurance why they can't have basic benefits that keep families strong? Frankly, the state couldn't give them one reasonable answer. So they said treat them equally under the law. That's what happened in Massachusetts. And there really is nothing that can be done to stop this and good. And like I said, Massachusetts will then help educate the rest of the country to the fact that any time we help families be stronger, any time we protect children, and over a million children are being raised in gay households including my two the boys that I'm raising, that's a good thing. That's a good thing for families and a good thing for children. RAY SUAREZ: Matt Daniels, do you agree with Cheryl Jacques that May 17 is coming and it is unlikely that there's anything that's going to stop gay marriage? MATT DANIELS: I do. The majority of Americans, if they have a say in this democratically, they don't need to be educated. They know what marriage is: It's the union of a man and woman. They believe children do best when they have mothers and fathers, male and female role models. There is an ocean of empirical data which supports that proposition. They believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose but they don't have a right to redefine marriage through the courts. What we are going to see is more and more people moving in favor of some sort of resolution which is democratic as opposed to judicial, and which allows us to send a positive message to our children and grandchildren about the unique nature and social importance of the union of male and female, something which cannot be copied or imitated by those who cannot play the roles of mothers or fathers. For example, a gay couple cannot offer children the benefit of half the human race, women, moms flip it on its heads. A lesbian couple can offer young men, boys, the benefits of having fathers to show them the things that only men can teach other men. There is something special about the union of male and female. The American people believe that. They don't need to be educated. And, you know what, if the American people speak through the amendment process, we'll see marriage protected and all questions of benefits under our amendment would be left to the democratic process. It is not about benefits. It never will be. It is will about the future of men and women in America for every man, woman and child. RAY SUAREZ: It does take a long time to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution. It's more likely to see an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution in the near term MATT DANIELS: I would disagree. The Massachusetts state amendment effort in the best case scenario cannot fully play out until 2006. Given that we have 38 states that have recently passed laws to protect marriage within their jurisdictions from this sort of judicial activism or judicial policy-making, the right and left do judicial activism, and I'm not saying it is the only example, but it is one. Thirty-eight states have passed laws to protect their marriage laws from what is happening in Massachusetts and what will happen in the federal courts. That's all you need to ratify a federal marriage amendment. If you we get this amendment out of Congress, I believe it will pass through the states rapidly, certainly before 2006 which is what it would take to amend the Massachusetts state constitution. RAY SUAREZ: Before that happens, it sounds like you are conceding there will be married gay people. What happens to them if the amendment goes then? MATT DANIELS: What will happen between them is that the courts of Massachusetts will strike down the duly enacted marriage laws representing the judgment of the Massachusetts legislature. If you believe that marriage is uniquely and essentially the union two of genders that that has unique benefits for children, that's the end of marriage. You understand if that's how you define marriage, men and women coming together -- the two halves of the human race uniting to parent children, it is marriage being struck down by courts that don't understand what most people in this country think and believe. RAY SUAREZ: Cheryl Jacques, until there is some other actions that are taken and other levels of government, what happens in Massachusetts if people start getting married after May 17? What happens to them once... CHERYL JACQUES: You know, frankly, for a small group of families, they're stronger. And for the rest of the country, it's a normal day like any other day. This doesn't change marriage. This allows more people to enjoy marriage, enjoy the protections that come with marriage, the thousands of federal benefits and so forth. I have to respectfully disagree with Matt. He says, you know, these families are not deserving of protections. There are over a million children out there raised by gay parents, including my two little boys. And tell me why, Matt, it's fair for me to pay week after week out of my paycheck into the Social Security system, yet if I die, my children, my partner will not get he financial benefits that your family would get? Why is that fair? Why does that help your family? It only hurts my family. RAY SUAREZ: Matt Daniels. MATT DANIELS: This is not about benefits and it never will be. CHERYL JACQUES: It is about benefits. MATT DANIELS: I'm answering your question Cheryl: I'd like to answer a question. The right has been on record for almost two years. The right has been on record for almost two years opposing our federal marriage amendment because we would leave all questions of benefits to the states. That's a matter of public record. In fact, we have taken a lot of incoming fire from groups on the right who don't allow us, don't want to see a centrist solution to the issue that offers some hope of reconciling the competing claims of both extremes. We want to protect marriage as a man and woman and leave all benefits questions to the people of the state in keeping with our democratic values and culture, not the courts. RAY SUAREZ: Cheryl Jacques, in the last few moments, a court in California that has been called upon to put a restraining order on the city of San Francisco for issuing marriage license to same sex couples has refused to do so. Your reaction? CHERYL JACQUES: Well, and let me just say -- meanwhile, my family doesn't have the benefits that Matt talks about and it is important to remember that. All this prospective talk -- meanwhile there are families and children that don't have the legal benefits that are afforded his family and that's discrimination any way you label it. With regard to California, I'm thrilled that that court is not interfering with the mayor's call to allow couples to get married. You know, that's a good thing. Any time we share benefits, any time we have other families be stronger, the entire nation is the beneficiary of that. That's always good. It's why we want the family structure. It's why we want two loving committed parents raising children. It's why I'm a former lawmaker; it's why we write laws that give families so many tax protections, inheritance protections, health care protections because the family unit is a wonderful thing and we should encourage it. There are thousands, millions of gay families out there who are waking up in the morning, worried about the same thing as any other family, good schools, a safe community, raising their children, and they're doing all of that with none of the legal protections that help keep other families strong. That is not good for this country. And we are now on a path to fix it. That's a good thing. RAY SUAREZ: Does this open another front -- California and that move in that particular court? MATT DANIELS: No, it doesn't. I think that's really more of a PR stunt because in California as a lawyer, I can tell you that marriage is a state institution. The real battle here will be resolved nationally. It will be done fortunately democratically. And this is not about discrimination because two of the largest black denominations in America, men and women who marched, who were beaten and jailed for their participation in the civil rights movement, support the federal marriage amendment because they believe kids flourish and do best when the two genders come together to parent: Men and women offering role models that only mothers and fathers can offer. That's a widely held proposition that transcends virtually every racial, cultural and religious boundary line that's reflected in our diverse coalition and I believe the American people will see the day when marriage as a man and woman with its unique benefits is protected and everything else under our amendment left to the democratic process in the states. RAY SUAREZ: Very quick response Cheryl Jacques. CHERYL JACQUES: Well, leading civil rights leaders like Dr. King's wife, Coretta Scott King, Julian Bond from the NAACP, Congressman John Lewis, who walked side by side with Dr. King, stand shoulder to shoulder with us in this fight because they see it for exactly what it is. It is this generation's fight for civil rights. Once again, we are at a place in our society where we are, some are looking at a small minority of people, gay and lesbian families and saying you are not deserving as the same as the rest of society. True civil rights leaders understand they've been there before and we heard the exact same arguments, the exact same arguments, to defend segregation. We heard the same exact argument to ban interracial marriage. History was wrong then, it's wrong now and America will fulfill her promise. She always does, of full fairness and equality for all her citizens. RAY SUAREZ: Cheryl Jacques, Matt Daniels, thank you both.