CBS Face The Nation - Transcript

HEADLINE: Tammy Baldwin and Rick Santorum debate gay marriage

ANCHORS: BOB SCHIEFFER

BODY:

BOB SCHIEFFER, host:

And we turn now to literally domestic affairs in this country. The announcement this week that President Bush will support an amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage. We're going to talk about that now with two people who have very different points of view. In Madison, Wisconsin, this morning Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, who is openly gay. And here in our studio, Senator Rick Santorum, who is chairman of the Republican Conference in the Senate.

Senator Santorum, thank you for coming.

Senator RICK SANTORUM (Republican, Pennsylvania; Chairman, Republican Conference): Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: The president announced this week that he would support this amendment, but clearly there's not even consensus among Republicans about this. My estimate is that at this point this would not pass either the Senate or the House by the two-thirds votes needed to get it to the states, where you would also needed 38 vote-votes to ratify it. So it leads me to this question: Are you going to try to bring this to a vote this year?

Sen. SANTORUM: Well, first off, if you look at-at this issue, this is an issue that's really just at the beginning of being discussed. The best example is really Massachusetts. When they-when the court originally ruled in Massachusetts to require marriage in-in Massachusetts, the public was not for it. The public was not for a constitutional amendment. The public wasn't even for gay marriage. By the time the debate had occurred-and that's why I thank you for having this debate here today. By the time the public had been educated as to what the consequences were, not for homosexual couples but for heterosexual couples and for the institution of marriage, what the impact of society would be, the public changed. And, in fact, the Legislature changed.

Almost two-thirds of the Massachusetts Legislature voted for a constitutional amendment, the most liberal Legislature in the entire country. So I think what it shows is once the debate is engaged-and that's why we're-we're starting this debate next week with a hearing in John Cornyn's subcommittee on the-on the Senate Judiciary Committee, once the debate's engaged and the public begins to focus on what the stakes are for marriage, not what the stakes are for a gay couple but what the stakes are for marriage in our country, that-I think the public opinion will change.

SCHIEFFER: All right. So that leads me to-to go back to the original question. It sounds to me as if you're going to wait a while before you try to bring this to a vote. Would you think you could bring it to a vote before the election or will...

Sen. SANTORUM: Oh...

SCHIEFFER: ...it be some time after the election?

Sen. SANTORUM: Oh, I don't think-we'll-we'll bring this before the election. We're going to have a hearing-two hearings in March. Hopefully, we'll come out of the Senate Judiciary Committee some time in April and then have it on the floor ready this spring. And when the vote is, that's up to the leader.

SCHIEFFER: Congresswoman Baldwin, some leading gay legislature-legislators such as Barney Frank have said the-the scenes of people getting married out-these same-sex marriages in San Francisco are actually hurting the chances to convince the public that this ought to be approved. Do you think that's right?

Representative TAMMY BALDWIN (Democrat, Wisconsin): Well, I've heard Mayor Newsom speak to a public audience on this issue. And he indicates that he believes that he's doing what's right under the California Constitution. And there's actually a mechanism in place. His actions are being challenged in courts, and they will be decided in an orderly way. And so I think perhaps the biggest long-range impact of what's happening in San Francisco right now is the American public are seeing people who have made life-long, permanent commitments to one another who are seeking to petition their government for the right to protect their families. And that's a good thing for the American public to see, and it's a good thing in order to advance this debate in an orderly way in the states of this nation where the debate ought to be taking, not in the Congress of the United States, where our Constitution has historically been used to expand rights, not limit rights and write in discrimination into our US Constitution.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you just heard what Senator Santorum just said. He said he thinks by getting it out and-and beginning the debate that minds will be changed. Do you think that's true?

Rep. BALDWIN: Well, I think that there is a healthy debate occurring in all the states across the country right now and there's absolutely no need for federal constitutional action. As I just said, our Constitution has been used to expand rights. We've used amendments to the Constitution to abolish slavery, to expand voting rights. And this is the tradition in the United States. I also think that to put this debate in the context of a presidential election, to have our president stand up the second day of his launching of his presidential campaign and announce this as a centerpiece of his campaign is evidence of somebody desperately trying to divert the American attention away from our problems with jobs, the empty factories that dot the country, the problems people are facing securing health care and affordable prescription drugs...

SCHIEFFER: Well...

Rep. BALDWIN: ...the unfortunate foreign-results of the foreign policy where we are seeing way too many deaths and injuries in Iraq. He wants desperately to force this debate and divide this country and I think that's truly unfortunately.

SCHIEFFER: Senator?

Sen. SANTORUM: Well, I would say that the president hasn't forced this debate. What's-what's forced the debate have been unelected judges. Four judges in Massachusetts really have forced this debate of-of-of, in a sense, undermining traditional marriage by requiring the state of Massachusetts to p-to-to pass a gay-a-a gay marriage statute. And so what the president is doing is reacting. What we're seeing across the country is courts, in fact, forcing states to adopt something that they have no way of protecting. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution when one state adopts gay marriage, other states have to recognize that. And so the only way around that, unfortunately-and I think it is unfortunate-is a constitutional amendment process.

Rep. BALDWIN: You know...

Sen. SANTORUM: What the president-what the president recognizes is that the Constitution will be amended here in the next few years. The question is by whom. And I believe it, and I think that-that Congresswoman Baldwin believes it-the public should have a right to say if we leave it up to the states, that what-limit-that's a code word for: Let the courts do this for us.

SCHIEFFER: But...

Sen. SANTORUM: The other alternative is let democracy speak. The only way to do that, the only way is through the-through the constitutional amendment process.

SCHIEFFER: Congresswoman.

Rep. BALDWIN: Well, I couldn't disagree more. And first of all, history will see this differently than the senator is portraying right now. You know, the same words about activist judges have been uttered at different points in our nation's history. Forty years ago when Brown vs. the Board of Education was decided, people decried activist judges. Well, I thank those activist judges. And sometimes, I-I acknowledge, the people are uncomfortable with change. But I frankly think that state government is one of the most accessible levels of government for the people to truly participate in the debate. And we're seeing that across the country in the 50 states, some with outcomes that I strongly disagree with, others with outcomes that I agree with, and I'm sure the senator would say the same. But this is no place to start writing discrimination into the US Constitution.

SCHIEFFER: I-Congresswoman, let m-I-I take your point. Let me just ask you this question, though. During the civil rights era, we had citizens who showed peaceful disobedience of the law. What we're seeing here is public officials who are violating the law in the sense of-the-the law is clear on the books in-in-in California. In-in-in New York this week, we saw someone, you know, in a small community begin to issue marriage licenses. It would appear that in this case, i-you know, anyone who thinks they have the right to issue a hunting or a fishing license may decide that they have a right to issue a marriage license. Isn't this different than-than the situation in-in the civil rights era?

Rep. BALDWIN: I don't think so. If you look at the whole instance of the bans and criminal statutes against interracial marriage, the books were clear. Yet people engaged and officials allowed interracial couples to marry and test cases were brought. And, in fact, what they found was that the Constitution-in some cases state constitutions but certainly in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, our US Constitution decided that the laws of this land should apply equally to each of its citizens. And that's what the people who are currently petitioning for their government to allow them to-the tools to protect their families-that's what they're seeking, is equal protection of these laws.

Sen. SANTORUM: The-the congresswoman talks about discrimination, and the fact of the matter is that it is a-an obligation on those of us who have to make the laws to make calls as to what is the best way, in-in-in the case of marriage, to raise children. And that's what we are, in a sense, trying to do. We-we ha-we have made the decision that the ideal way in which to raise children is with a man and a woman raising children and-and nurturing that child in the unique way that men and women can do. To suggest that-saying that we are discriminating against same-sex couples, and-and that's discrimination, that-you're saying that Barbara Boxer is for discrimination, you're saying that Bill Clinton's for discrimination, 90 member-almost 90 members of the US Senate are for discrimination because we voted for the Defense of Marriage Act-if you're going to say that that's discrimination, then the logical extension is that other people who want to get married-let's say three people or four people who want to get married-should be allowed to get married, because we can't discriminate against them.

SCHIEFFER: Senator...

Sen. SANTORUM: If marriage is for anybody, then...

SCHIEFFER: Do you know if any movement in this country...

Sen. SANTORUM: Yeah, there's a co...

SCHIEFFER: And we've had this debate before. Yes, there are...

Sen. SANTORUM: There's a case...

SCHIEFFER: ...certain polygamists out there...

Sen. SANTORUM: There are cases...

SCHIEFFER: ...in some places in the rural...

Sen. SANTORUM: There are cases filed already-yeah.

SCHIEFFER: ...parts of Utah, but I don't see any great movement in this country...

Sen. SANTORUM: There...

SCHIEFFER: ...toward polygamy or people who want to marry...

Rep. BALDWIN: I-I'd like to-I couldn't agree more.

Sen. SANTORUM: Well, but the-but the-but the point-the point-the point is that-that it is a logical extension of the argument. And you say, well, the case-you know, the case isn't before us now. That does not mean that it doesn't open up and, in fact, require, under the-the Supreme Court decision was just issued last year...

Rep. BALDWIN: Sen...

Sen. SANTORUM: ...that-that-that those kinds of relationships are recognized. You can't stop the logic there. If it's OK for two people...

Rep. BALDWIN: Senator...

SCHIEFFER: Do you-do you find a logic there, Congresswoman?

Sen. SANTORUM: ...then why not for three?

Rep. BALDWIN: Senator, the one thing that I agreed with President Bush on ye-last week is that this should be a respectful debate. And I think that the words and the logic that you re-use right now is nonsense. This is ridiculous in terms of the assertion. The people who are petitioning for redress from their government right now are hardworking, tax-paying citizens in permanent, committed relationships, many of which have children. All they want are the legal tools to protect their families. And to make these false associations, to somehow indicate that same-sex couples and their families are to blame for some of the ills of society, is harmful. And, in fact, I would urge you to follow what our president said, which is have this be a de-respectful debate.

Sen. SANTORUM: It...

Rep. BALDWIN: But this is foolishness...

Sen. SANTORUM: Mi-mi...

Rep. BALDWIN: ...to bring up all of these other ills of society. I know of no one who is seeking this debate, and to have a fair debate, who is seeking the things that you suggest. I don't know about your constituents, but certainly mine are not.

Sen. SANTORUM: Congresswoman, just because you disagree with my point doesn't mean that I'm doing something that is-that-that-i-you know, that is out of bounds. It is not out of bounds anymore than you defending people who break the law is out of bounds.

Rep. BALDWIN: These are false associations.

Sen. SANTORUM: All I would suggest-all I-it's not association. It is a logical-you say it is discriminatory to-to-to bar people. You say it's a universal human right. I've heard comments repeatedly. If it is a universal human right, then how can you deny it of anybody? That's the whole point, Congresswoman.

Rep. BALDWIN: Your-your arguments...

Sen. SANTORUM: It is not-it is not being dec-it is not being mean, it is just simply taking your argument and-and taking it to its logical conclusion. All I'm suggesting is that marriage-that...

Rep. BALDWIN: Was is the logical conclusion that back when we banned the-the prohibitions against interracial marriage because I guarantee you those opponents to that made those same arguments then. And I think they have no place here. Let's get to the substance of the issue, the substance of the issue being should we amend the US Constitution to limit rights rather than expand rights?

SCHIEFFER: Let me...

Rep. BALDWIN: And I think that that's one which would be highly ill-advised to do. I also remind you that there really are two issues here. Whether or not you support same-sex marriage rights and whether or not you support amending the US Constitution. Let re memind-let me remind you that as we said at the outset of this show, people on both sides of that first question have come together to say it would be very ill-advised to amend our US Constitution.

SCHIEFFER: Let-let's get an answer-is that-is there a difference between being for or against same-sex marriage and being for or against this amendment?

Sen. SANTORUM: Ultimately the answer is no and the reason is is because the courts are not going to let us. They-they-the fact of the matter is that unless we amend the US Constitution, the courts will require it. And that's the direction we're going. And really the fundamental question we haven't really talked about is: What's at stake here? And-and the congresswoman would have you believe that what's at stake is affirming the love between two people. I would argue that what's at stake is-is really something much greater than that. And that is the institution of the American family. And what is marriage all about? Well, marriage historically has been about the-the-bringing together of a man and woman for-for the nurturing and caring for children, and-and doing so in the best and most ideal environment possible.

SCHIEFFER: Well...

Sen. SANTORUM: And what-what gay marriage does is, in fact, I would argue, though, do what no-fault divorce did back in the-in the late '60s and early '70s which is take marriage from being focused on family and children and have marriage being focused on adults and the rights of adults irrespective of the rights of those kids.

SCHIEFFER: Let me-let...

Rep. BALDWIN: First of all, he-the senator is ignoring reality. The reality is that many same-sex couples are raising children in very wonderful environments. And we ought to have the laws of this nation protect those children equally to the children who have the ability to be raised in the homes of married couples. Secondly, the current institution of marriage in no way limits those who can enter it to people who plan to procreate or raise children. It-it has no such limitations. So he's already talking about an institution that isn't narrowly tailored to that.

SCHIEFFER: The-the question...

Rep. BALDWIN: I-I also want to say that we-we hear about the-the laws and we also think about religious ceremonies but we're not talking right now about religious celebration of marriage. We're talking about hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, the ability to protect somebody in case of-of one partner's death and to protect the children in case of a partner's death. We're talking about fair tax treatment. We're talking about thousands of rights and responsibilities, mind you, that people want to use to protect their families.

Sen. SANTORUM: Bob.

Rep. BALDWIN: American families can only grow stronger if this debate is allowed to continue and flourish.

SCHIEFFER: Let's let the senator have a response to that.

Sen. SANTORUM: Well, with respect to those rights that-that are being denied, all of those rights can be done through contractual relationships. If in fact-if in fact...

Rep. BALDWIN: That's not true.

Sen. SANTORUM: ...that's the case. And with respect to federal taxation, you're right, they-it cannot be done with respect to federal taxation, but, then again, you have a caregiver who takes care of their mother maybe and who's-for 20 years, potentially, at home. Do they get to claim that person as a dependent? No. So we should be elevating the rights of-of-of-of homosexual couples, most of whom are two-income families, most of whom are actually very well-off, ahead of someone staying at home taking care of a mother and not getting those benefits? You know, the-the bottom line is here is again let's get back to the focus. The focus has to be the family. And all of these-you know, a single motherhood can-can work, a single fatherhood can work, gay-but the question is what is the ideal for children? And it is a man and a woman raising kids.

SCHIEFFER: All right, I'm sorry, the clock rules.

Sen. SANTORUM: Yeah. That's good.

SCHIEFFER: That has to be the last word. Congresswoman, thank you.

Rep. BALDWIN: Thank you.

END