Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Our game continue this debate getting two sides of the story is well one from.
A going to DC bureau where Peter S -- is standing by and we'll go to LA bureau where David -- -- Is standing by Peters -- senior fellow for policy studies the family research council David is the legal director.
We're at the Williams Institute UCLA's School of -- good to see both -- you gentlemen.
Thank you yes -- Thank you Peter I would start with you -- this because I understand your position is that marriages a male female union tell me your argument.
Marriage has been defined as a male female union for millennia and the reason is simple it is to the public purpose of marriage is to bring together men and women.
To produce children and two provide mothers and fathers for the children produced by their union.
That's a unique role that is served only by opposite sex unions.
So we believe that that Supreme Court should uphold.
That natural definition of marriage and uphold the right of the people to decide this issue rather than unilaterally overruling the decision of the people.
And David before LA UN let me get a quick follow with Peter because they are some men and women who get married.
Completely knowing that they don't want to produce children they are getting married because they love each other and they -- share their lives together legally.
And all of the benefits that go along with that.
That's true but we make law based on the rule rather than the exception.
And it's sufficient to know that.
Only saying only opposite sex couples can result in procreation.
And same sex unions can never result in natural procreation that offers a clear bright line.
Four Ford treating -- -- relationships differently under the law day that your position.
Okay we'll I think it's important in analyzing this issue to begin by understanding.
Who we are talking about we decide whether same sex couples should be able to get married.
There are currently at least eight million Americans who identify as lesbian gay bisexual or transgender.
And according to the 2010.
Same sex couples.
-- living in households together that means that approximately one point three million American adults are living in same sex households.
Moreover the US census data indicate.
Of those couples.
Are raising children that means that in some.
Children in this country are being raised by same sex couples.
And so the important thing to bear in mind is we have this debate is we're talking about.
Not some -- radical families that actual existing families same sex couples.
And the children they -- raising.
And so it's important.
To consider that these hundreds of thousands of couples and their children.
From the legal protection from more than 1000.
Federal provisions of law for example that apply to same sex couples that have started -- apply to married couple.
Anderson let me.
Eight gaelic your statistics they're David -- picked up here an opportunity to to respond to something.
Because aside from the legal benefits with David is saying Peter that.
They may not be able to procreate but the fact that they have parental know how is still there and in place you say what to that.
There's an abundance of social science research that shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father.
Who are committed to one another and a lifelong marriage.
We know there are exceptions to that not all children have the privilege of being able to grow up -- that type of household but.
Marriage as a matter of public policy upholds that ideal for us to redefine marriage would be denying that that ideal exist.
And that would be very unwise.
David still I want to talk to you yet look I had done it.
Well I do.
Just want -- respond that the social science research absolutely does not support the point.
That was just put forward.
And the study is about children being.
That better off with their biological parents were not study comparing.
It's children being raised by gay and lesbian parents -- those studies applied to.
Adopted children being raised by heterosexual couples and so there is no social science data that supports that point.
He ignores the fact that many same sex couples I'm -- many heterosexual couples have no intention appropriating when they get married and in fact many cannot procreate.
There's procreation rationale for marriage that is being trumpeted now in these cases.
Is really I think option that I think for most married people.
Wouldn't be unrecognizable.
As the reason that they got married marriage is not simply.
And in addition those arguments ignore the fact that among the couples same sex couples that are raising children.
I -- -- two thirds of those are children that are being raised by one of their biological parents.
Again I know you're loaded with statistics and it's good -- help your argument but let me ask you this sort of talk about prop 85 years later.
You know Californians voted against same sex marriage basically changing their mind so what what do you think the policy is now.
Think the -- is now overwhelmingly.
Of permitting same sex couples to marry.
In the same manner that heterosexual couples marry I think the public is beginning to recognize that gay and lesbian people.
Form families just as heterosexual couples do.
And that society benefits when.
And the states and the federal government.
Recognize the lifelong commitments of same sex couples and encourage and support those families by providing protections.
And those protections include protections for children that these couples are raising.
I think the country California and the country.
Are coming to the realization.
That equal protection includes gay and lesbian people.
Right Justice Kennedy.
But me I'm sorry I wouldn't have been only because I -- -- David with.
With everybody a couple of viewer chats we got that coming in here -- -- 23323.
Says keywords legal protection.
That's all everybody wants lady -- Are preventing -- right she says last I checked you could have children without being married.
And a minute I've got to wrap in since that David you were speaking -- -- go ahead and he -- like twenty seconds of his last thoughts and because Peter understand you say this should not be up to the Supreme Court.
But the people should decide your final thoughts in twenty seconds for me.
Exactly and the polling data is -- mixed on this because when the people are asked what we believe is the correct question.
And when the question is framed as the definition of marriage we still -- -- saying that around 60%.
Of the American public believes that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman we shouldn't redefine marriage.
Four to satisfy the desires of adults.
We should define marriage to serve the needs of children.
I sitters can give -- -- third but I you said something David quickly the desires of the of adults quickly responded -- and I got to go.
And the desires of adults that has been referred -- is the desire to form lifelong commitments with each other and that desire by same sex couples is the same desire.
That motivates heterosexual couples to enter into marriage.
And it's an important thing that marriage does is it.
Recognizes the commitment and it fortified -- -- Consenting adults who -- to spend their lives together and gay and lesbian couples are no different from heterosexual couples and that resides and we leave it very David Goodell -- -- thank you very much triple -- positions and giving us that.
Food for thought thank you very much.
Filter by section