Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
By the Supreme Court issued another major ruling on gay marriage today -- -- from California's prop eight the High Court striking down a key component.
To the federal defense of marriage act or dharma.
Justice Kennedy argued essentially that -- was encroaching on the State's power to protect its citizens if the state approves same sex marriage writing quotes.
When the state used its historic and essential authority to define -- marital relation in this way.
Its role and it's power and making the decision enhance the recognition.
Dignity and protection of the class in their own community.
Dogma because of its reach and extends departs from this history.
And tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.
Let's bring in tally counts as a Fox News contributor who has had that serves as an advocate for gay rights.
Ryan Anderson at the co author of the book what is marriage man and woman.
And defense welcome to you both today nice to see if we have a lot of issues to work through here and it.
I don't what at the start a conversation on the merits of same sex marriage or not.
But it like to talk about today is the role of government because that's a theme we see in a lot of our big stories whether it's immigration or health care anything else.
And it seems that this -- stream court today really made a big statement about.
That relationship and Sally you just wrote a piece it just went up on foxnews.com.
Fits in perfectly with this titled what same sex marriage decision tells us about America and the constitution what do you think it tells us and it -- -- this fits within our long history as a nation of striving toward making a more perfect union we know that you know throughout our history we've never.
Quite gotten there we've had times in our history where we have legally.
Certain groups of people as though they were superior.
To other groups of people and we've over time worked to address that.
This is what the court is doing right now is fundamentally recognizing that you cannot pass laws under our constitution and our our American values you cannot pass laws.
Solely for the purpose of discriminating.
I would also add they're also doing it in a very clever way where they're relying on the sort of State's rights argument that.
Were this any other issue conservatives would be cheering but in this case somehow conservatives want the federal government to step on the toes of the state.
Well -- to that point Scalia and his dissenting argument actually said -- he said that the Supreme Court was overstepping its bounds and overruling what elected representatives.
Have already put -- word.
As representatives of the public.
What do you think of what Sally -- to -- and again how we're looking at this relationship between the -- judicial branch the federal government the state government and local community.
Yeah -- Justice Scalia got it right.
The federal government has constitutional authority to define marriage for federal purposes and for federal policies.
Just says the fifty states have authority to define marriage for state purposes and for state policies.
-- gets the constitution wrong is if you say that the states can impose their definition.
-- the federal government.
-- to the court as a whole -- kind of issued contradictory ruling today -- the states are free to define marriage how they want.
And yet they didn't allow the citizens of California who went to the ballot box twice.
The pass a lot of finding marriage -- you have a man and a woman.
That children have moms and dads they didn't uphold that law they said the citizens of California didn't have standing to defend their law.
And yet they then say that.
In the -- a decision that state should be sovereign to define.
Arizona write a -- where do you think that where do you think the individual turns to the government's.
For that definition about what marriage -- is that appropriate debate it in in the local community in the city.
Is it in the state government or isn't is -- in the federal government ultimately.
Both the states have to define marriage for state law and the federal government for federal law.
And what's important here to say why is government in the marriage business.
Government's not in the marriage business because -- cares about the love life of consenting adults marriage isn't just about romance.
The reason that governments in the marriage business is because the union of a man and a woman can produce a child.
And children need a mom and a dad.
And marriages the institution that ensures that that expects -- maximizes the likelihood.
The -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- now you know with his we've had this in this ruling about federal benefits that we had this when it comes to tax policy.
This is one of the reasons why this debate came up regarding dumb luck because of the federal benefits that if you were eight same sex couple in a state like New York you were not able to -- Beyond this right do you believe that another argument should -- -- should come before the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court shed.
Make -- sweeping statement on marriage and marriage rights in this country is that the right place for this debate to go next.
Or is it something that should take place in the states and we have a country where maybe there's papacy say asleep on have to -- say that this.
And it I think we'll get there eventually anyway.
One way or the other so either there will be a challenge to.
The many efforts in states that have tried to ban marriage equality or the states will eventually get there on their own you know.
That the reality here is the reason we have what the government is sadness -- -- got a constitution for -- say.
You cannot make a loss you are not allowed to make laws in this country just that are solely for the purpose of discrimination and no matter all the excuses that Ryan -- to put forward that's what's happening here it's saying we -- -- treat.
Families like mine.
As legally second class status.
Two other families and it's not just for purposes of child -- and so forth although I also have a child it's also for tax policy and immigration policy hospital visitation.
-- thousand federal benefits most of which have nothing to do with anything but you know.
Conferring right on loving couple so I want to get Riley and I look at -- -- I dislike mr.
you're on disaster response aren't ranked.
I citizens of that state of California went about -- twice to pass a law that tells the truth about marriage that's the union a man and a woman.
And -- we have laws like that he's 38 states the Supreme Court today rejected the argument that those laws are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court said that -- those laws aren't violations of equal protection because the union of a man and a woman is different than the union of two men are two women.
Only the -- a man and a woman can produce a child.
And only that union provide a chat with the mom -- -- -- benefits -- marriage laws recognize that reality just and they promoted as the ideal.
It's interesting that it connecting California because of voters went and made that decision but then the elected officials made -- different decisions are here reading all these different layers right.
Just real quick -- into the democracy in in a democracy.
Skilled portraits by the people would well yeah I actually I am -- -- -- different.
Do you see this issue US and -- having a place I'm on the national -- and just being about the people on the voters apart from the fact that I'm a little confused as to how my right to marry affects Ryan at all unless we're getting -- Bryant.
I'm not quite clear how you know look you're entitled to your personal pain and everyone is and I think.
This of all the cases make clear churches individuals get to do what they want it also says that our government cannot discriminate.
We don't legislate in this country based on popular opinion.
Or on ideals when it comes to -- is not a national that we have we believe what he's not isolate me I don't -- -- not based on popularity we legislate based on the coming good.
And we leave all Americans free to live in a lot how they choose so and every state to people of the same sex and love each other live with each other nothing about that's illegal.
The question is are beginner redefine marriage.
And enforce a new definition of marriage on all citizens.
On religious groups and on businesses and that's inaccurate that's gonna happen it should be democratically -- companies -- -- it'd be interesting to talk about it because it just our viewers know once again that's the one thing that the Supreme Court did not do today.
There's a sweeping statement overall about.
Marriage in general and that is -- will continue to have a -- have you both back.
Hopefully no marriages between the two of you because that I get to have the -- -- again also where it might back.
Italian writings are having had to -- so much.
Filter by section