Fox News Sunday - Transcript

Fox News Network

SHOW: FOX NEWS SUNDAY (09:00)

HEADLINE: Interview With John Cornyn, Barney Frank

GUESTS: John Cornyn, Barney Frank

BYLINE: Chris Wallace

BODY:
WALLACE: This week, Massachusetts lawmakers failed to pass a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. The debate, now suspended until March, is an attempt to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling ordering officials to begin issuing marriage licenses to same- sex couples by May 17th.

Where is the fight over gay marriage headed? I'm joined now by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who will soon hold a hearing on this issue, and Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who is a gay rights activist.

And gentlemen, welcome. Good to have you both with us.

REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Thank you.

WALLACE: Senator Cornyn, let me start with you, and let's start at the beginning. What is wrong with gay marriage?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN ®, TEXAS: Well, it's really-the problem, mainly, is the way that the judges, four judges in Massachusetts, have thrust this on the people of Massachusetts and now, by extension, the American people.

WALLACE: But I'm not asking you about the process there. I'm asking, what's wrong with gay marriage?

CORNYN: Well, I simply believe that an intact, traditional family is the most stable unit in which children can be raised. And I think that's what the vast majority of American people believe in and what, I think, they ought to be given an opportunity to vote on.

WALLACE: All right. Congressman Frank, let me turn it around to you. If you're going to argue for the right of gays to marry, why stop there? Why not, say, polygamy or any other personal choice?

FRANK: Because society has, I think, a right to make certain decisions. They ought to make them fairly.

Deciding that a relationship between two people promotes stability, is likely to help society, is a rational decision. And two versus three is a very clear thing. You have a three-way situation, the likelihood of dissension, et cetera, is greater.

As to the traditional family, I think it's a wonderful thing, and same-sex marriage will in no way alter it. I think we ought to be very clear.

What's happened in Massachusetts is this: To the overwhelming majority of heterosexual Massachusetts citizens, marriage will not change in any way, shape or form. The legal benefits, the legal obligations, most importantly the emotional sense-it doesn't change.

This is not going to destroy the intact family. We don't have heterosexual couples who are now going to say, "Hey, I can go marry a guy," and leave his wife. I mean, it is a separate issue.

And I think it is fair for society to say relationships between two people, we want give those legal sanction, because we think that mutuality can produce stability.

WALLACE: All right. Senator Cornyn?

CORNYN: Well, I think Americans instinctively believe in two things at the same time. One is the essential dignity of every human being, but also the benefit of traditional marriage. And I think to call some other relationship, no matter what it is in practice, trivializes what people have come to believe is a very important institution, which is marriage.

WALLACE: Senator, why does this rise to the level that we have to amend our precious U.S. Constitution? Why not just leave this to the states?

CORNYN: Well, I think, unfortunately, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has started this debate in earnest. People thought that this was just a hypothetical situation, but it is now very much upon us. Couples are marrying in San Francisco; even in Austin, Texas, same-sex couples were seeking marriage licenses.

This is a very real issue, not hypothetical. And we need to live up to our responsibilities to deal with it.

WALLACE: Congressman, let me ask you the flip side of that. Why shouldn't the federal government step in? Aren't we headed for a legal mess here? I mean, isn't that going to be a problem if a couple is married in Massachusetts, but they're not married in Texas?

FRANK: No. In the first place, we've had that situation. The states have had different rules of marriage throughout the 220 years of this country's history, in which, as Dick Cheney pointed out when he was trying to get votes in 2000, this has always been a state issue. Vice presidential candidate Cheney said we should leave it to the states, and the states will come to different conclusions.

If the amendment simply said one state will not have to recognize what another state does if it doesn't want to, that, I think, frankly, would probably pass the Congress.

But that's not what the amendment does. The amendment says no state can do it. And those are two separate questions.

I do not want the courts to rule that if one state makes this decision, every other state has to follow it, but...

WALLACE: I mean, I could see all kinds of problems arising if a couple is married-let me tell you, if my wife and I are married here in Washington, D.C., and I move to Virginia, and suddenly Virginia says, "Well, you're not married, so therefore you have no obligations," isn't that a problem?

FRANK: Yes, it is a problem, and it's a choice you have to make. But it would be worse if you and your wife weren't be able to be married at all. You don't always get to everywhere you want to go.

And we did-look, we had a situation in this country-we all now deplore it-where interracial marriages were allowed in some states and not recognized in other states.

We've had situations where the states have had differential rules on the age at which you can marry.

That's federalism. Federalism means that when you make this conscious choice-so if you make a chance to get married as a same- sex couple in Massachusetts and then to move elsewhere, you have to live with that. I think most people are prepared to say that's better than not being able to get married at all.

But I do think it's important to separate the two issues: Should the federal government say no state can make this decision for itself? That's a separate question from saying: States don't have to follow others.

The latter, I think, is not controversial nearly as much as the former.

CORNYN: Chris, there's two points. One is that the United States Congress has already, in the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan way, defined marriage in traditional terms, as a union of a man and woman.

And secondly, if you're going to agree with Barney's argument that the states ought to be able to decide it, three-quarters of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment for it to pass. So the people will have a chance to vote, not just four judges in Massachusetts thrusting this decision on the rest of us.

FRANK: Two things. First of all, it is not just four judges in Massachusetts. We are now engaged in Massachusetts-and I think there's the advantage. I don't think, frankly, Senator, you're fully understanding what's going on in Massachusetts.

There's a major debate involving the legislature and the public. The judges began this, but the judges don't end it. There's been votes in the legislature. The legislature's divided 100-98, 104-94. So this is really being debated, and it will ultimately be decided in Massachusetts if a majority of the legislature decides it by a referendum.

Secondly, saying that something is states' rights doesn't mean that three-quarters of the states can override another state.

And again, was Dick Cheney kidding in 2000, when he was trying to look moderate and trying to get votes, when he said in 2000, debating Joe Lieberman, "I think this should be left up to the states, and the states will come to different conclusions"? Is this bait-and-switch by Bush- Cheney?

CORNYN: Barney we found out that the Articles of Confederation didn't work particularly well, so what happens in Massachusetts does affect the rest of the nation.

FRANK: But what if we had a situation where-and, again, if you were to put forward this amendment-and I think what's happened is, frankly, the conservatives don't want to allow the possibility of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, even though it does no harm to any traditional marriage-the question would be: Why not an amendment that said, if they wanted to, one state doesn't have to follow another? That's very different than the current amendment, which says, "No state can do it."

CORNYN: If Barney really feels seriously about this, and he think the American people will vote to endorse the concept of same-sex marriage, then he has nothing to fear by this amendment...

FRANK: Senator, I'm not talking about...

CORNYN: ... because the Congress will have a chance to vote, two- thirds must pass it, and then the American people in the various states will get a chance to vote it. Not just judges thrusting it on the American people.

FRANK: Senator, you are making a terrible factual error. Three- quarters is not 100 percent. Now we're getting arithmetic.

The question of state-by-state is, each state has a right to make a decision. And if three, four, or five states want to do something, it seems to me, if it doesn't affect other people, they ought to be able to.

And all we're saying is, "We believe if same-sex marriage happens Massachusetts..."

Let me go back. In Vermont they did this in 2000, and all of the arguments that are now being made against marriage were being made against civil unions in Vermont. And you know what? If you move to Vermont tomorrow from Michigan, you wouldn't know that they had them, if you were heterosexual, as most people are. And it's had zero effect.

So it's one thing to say three-quarters of the states can dictate everybody. It's another to say each state should make its own decisions.

WALLACE: Senator, let me ask you a question. I know you're talking about passing an amendment that would ban gay marriage. How do you feel about civil unions?

CORNYN: Well, I think, frankly, I think those ought to be left up to the states. What the Musgrave amendment, the one that's been filed by Senator Allard in the Senate, would just prohibit judges from forcing civil unions on people without the opportunity for people in those states to vote.

WALLACE: Explain to me, though, the reasoning. Why is it that you feel that civil union can be left to the states, but not gay marriage?

CORNYN: Well, I think the American people instinctively understand that the vast majority of Americans have religious, ethical and moral reasons why they believe that traditional marriage is the best unit for the emotional and financial support of children.

And I believe that ought to be honored. This is not a country that says judges should be able to dictate to us a meaning of a constitution that has been in place 224 years in Massachusetts and then thrust that on the rest of us.

This is a country that believes on consent of the governed. All I'm suggesting is that the American people, and the United States Congress, ought to be able to have a chance to vote on it.

WALLACE: Congressman?

FRANK: Couple of things. First of all, that misstates the amendment.

I would say, Senator, you've twice said the American people instinctively realize this. Instinct is good, but I wouldn't let instinct be the total last word in public policy. I think we want to start with instinct, but get into rational debate, as well.

CORNYN: Well, I'll settle for a vote.

FRANK: Well, OK. And we want to have one in Massachusetts, and you're trying to stop us from having one, because you've misstated the amendment. It says, first line of the amendment...

WALLACE: Let's put up the amendment while you're talking here.

FRANK: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." That means that even if the referendum in Massachusetts, which we may well have, were to say you could have same-sex marriage, it wouldn't be valid.

So this amendment doesn't just stop judges from doing it, it stops any state from any political process from doing that.

Secondly, as to civil unions...

WALLACE: You've only got a few seconds left. But let me ask...

CORNYN: Chris, the fact is there is no amendment that's been passed by either body, the House or the Senate.

FRANK: But we're talking about the one you're supporting. Do you want marriage in the United States...

CORNYN: I have not endorsed a particular amendment, I'm-what we are talking about...

FRANK: You're not for the Musgrave amendment?

CORNYN: I'm for traditional marriage...

WALLACE: Congressmen, we're not on the floor of the House. Wait a minute. I'll ask the questions here.

(LAUGHTER)

Senator, let me ask you, though, because there is some question about whether or not this amendment may, in fact, ban civil unions as well as marriage. Would you support rewriting the amendment to make it clear you're not banning civil unions, you're leaving that to the states?

CORNYN: Well, of course, this will be the subject of hearings and debate in both the House and the Senate.

WALLACE: No, but I'm asking you.

CORNYN: I personally feel that what we ought to focus on is the institution of marriage. Define it as we already have in the Defense of Marriage Act, which won by overwhelming bipartisan majority in '96 and was signed by President Clinton. What I'm proposing would do nothing different, except make...

WALLACE: And as far as civil unions is concerned, you'd want to make it clear that that's a states' rights issue?

CORNYN: I think we're going to have a lot of debate about that. There has not been an amendment that has passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee or been passed out of either body of the Congress.

FRANK: You're not going to get an answer, either. So it doesn't make any difference which of us asks the question, he ain't going to answer it.

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: We're going to leave it there. Gentlemen, thank you both for coming in. We appreciate it.

CORNYN: Thanks, Chris.