Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Another big day of the supreme called.
For the second day running the justice is all -- called.
Our hair in a case on the constitutionality.
All of gay marriage what they're looking at this time is it constitutional challenge of the federal law all the prevents legally married same sex couples.
Federal benefits this follows yesterday's.
-- When they were discussing -- -- The California proposition.
That essentially banned -- gay marriage in that state.
So let's get into the issues here that the Supreme Court justices all looking at in particular on the defense of marriage act today I'm joined by Ken Cook -- -- Who's director of the -- for religious liberty.
The family research council.
Big supporter of the defense of marriage act and rabbi Evan -- spiritual leader with congregations so well joining us.
From Los Chicago bureau -- -- data about.
Hello hello Jonathan didn't do it just let me so when you can why he should in your view the defense of marriage act.
Well of course today Jonathan that the court is only considering a challenge to section three of the defense of marriage act toward goma.
Which says that for purposes of federal law marriage consists of the union of one man and one woman that has nothing to do with you can and cannot get married.
It's instead of -- federal benefits there's over a thousand provisions of federal law.
That pertain to marriage such as who can file a married tax return.
It dawned on provisions like that the federal government has a separate definition from the states for example if you are married to someone but legally separated from them.
The federal government does not permit you to file -- married tax return both of you have to file individual unmarried person tax returns.
So whenever there's an outlay of taxpayer money the federal government has an interest in who receives that money who receives those benefits.
And just for those purposes they established a uniform definition of of marriage so that federal law would apply equally in all fifty states.
Rob I won't stay -- we'll see opposing view here why should the defense of marriage act to be stood down as it -- Well the defense of marriage act is one of a great travesty is of of legislation passed in the United States.
Two in fact I see it as a threat to a religious liberty as a rabbi as somebody who performs gay marriages.
For the government to say this doesn't count as a marriage your definition as a as a religious figure your definition marriage doesn't count.
Seems to me to be an overreaching a threat to religious liberty.
And it's and it's also bad for American business.
A virtually all the major companies who filed briefs in in this case have said it should be struck down because it makes.
In -- -- makes it incredibly complicated for companies to administer benefits when the federal government is giving them.
A definition of marriage with which doesn't fit in the real world you can.
Let me put it to this like.
If -- couple is legally married regardless of -- sex why should they not get federal benefits.
That's actually the issue before the court the court does not whether it's good or bad policy the question.
Is does it violate the US comes.
Amber and I get married.
The test the -- has to -- is called rational basis review.
In that is when congress passed -- in 1996.
Where they rational in thinking that they were promoting any legitimate public interest such.
Determining who financial benefit should go to which the court has previously held whenever taxpayer money is involved there is always a legitimate public interest.
In congress determine who would have been if I series.
-- -- again and it never mind walk the Supreme Court is looking at today I'm I'm not asking about the bigger philosophical.
Question if somebody is legally married.
Where god bless all of that sex what is the argument for not allowing them to have the same federal benefits.
That any of them married couple.
-- Well it's not for any other married couple because -- says one man and one woman.
We have right now in my country and I will be one man one woman.
No no no no what I'm saying is there are millions of marriages across the country that are more than two people don't know it just doesn't say one man and one woman regarding gender.
But it also -- federal recognition of polygamy.
Right now of course polygamy is legal -- over fifty nations around the world there are hundreds of thousands of polygamous in this country right now.
But the federal government does not recognize that marriage either if you were a man married to for women as is perfectly legal under Islam for example.
You cannot file a five person usually -- tax return but his hand -- I personally have filed a two person.
-- -- I'm not sure the issue here.
Get I'm not sure if -- rabbits is polygamy.
-- I don't I'm not sure the issue here is polygamy I mean I think we can agree that that is.
Not the issue before the court and that the issue is.
Can a committed relationship that.
And which children are often involved which commitment is often involved which monogamy is involved can that be treated.
As a marriage by the federal government just like a man and a woman I think that's the issue and I think.
Grab my best -- Jonathan said Jonathan said it wasn't about the issue before the court today the question was philosophically.
Why you really can't all forms of marriages be recognized irony gave the legal guys like that is why all forms of marriage act can be recognized to be fat.
Can what I'm talking about -- let the -- coming here.
-- my question is on this issue of same sex marriage.
Nobody is suggesting that you'll get federal -- benefits if you wanna go -- and go to or if you wanna marry.
I'm I'm did whatever it might be I'm talking about the issue of same sex marriage is it up -- -- -- -- From a philosophical point of view to those who are legally married as -- same sex couple deserve the benefits.
That a legally married.
All opposing sex couple did deserve better -- become -- -- on that rabbi.
Well I look at it on two levels as a religious figure.
I believe that same sex marriage is perfectly legitimate inconsistent with treating all people on the image of god.
However I absolutely respect and honor those of other religions who disagree with me.
And I think it's their right if you are a pastor in a church.
And and you don't believe in same sex -- believe it violates the Bible you have absolutely every right to say.
I'm not going to marry that couple just like as a rabbi.
-- if some if you don't believe that interfaith marriage is good.
For Judy -- -- -- to do interfaith marriages but if you don't believe that that's part of your roles rabbi you can perfectly -- I'm not going to to do that wedding.
And that is a right that's part of the First Amendment.
I think as a religious person to me it works it's -- something that the fills my faith.
I also think -- it makes sense legally as people when I -- wedding.
I am given licensed by the state of Illinois to perform -- wedding.
Why should the state of Illinois or in this case the federal government -- This kind of wedding is legitimate but this kind of wedding is not to -- that's -- government interference I'd rather the government might leave alone on the issue of -- rabbi.
Filter by section