Same-sex marriage at the Supreme Court, something Susie feels very strongly about. And here in our audience, a man who says the court shouldn't make marriage policy for the country. Ryan Anderson is the author of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman, a defense.
Ryan, why are you so opposed to gay people getting married? You know, I'm not really opposed to anything in this situation. I think that marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be mother and father to any children their union produces. And that the Supreme Court and the cases that they're hearing today and tomorrow should really not cut short the democratic debate that we're having. Citizens all across the country right now are discussing what marriage is and why it matters.
And what we want to see the court do today and tomorrow is uphold our constitutional authority to have that debate and to pass laws about marriage. Okay, but when I asked the question why you're opposed to it, I assumed you're opposed to it. Are you saying you're not opposed to it? Are you in favor of gay marriage? I'm in favor of having the citizens...
have the authority to go to the ballot box and vote about marriage. And when they go to the ballot box... Now you sound like a politician.
Well, I want them to vote for marriage between a man and a woman. I think that's what marriage is. Let's keep this simple. Are you in favor or against gay marriage?
I'm in favor of marriage between a man and a woman. So you're against gay marriage? I don't like phrasing it that way, but you can phrase it that way.
Well, there's another way of phrasing it. You're either in favor of it or you're not. It's like saying you're against a square circle.
I think what marriage is is a union of a man and a woman. Do you believe that because, as many argue, it's to do with procreation? That basically the reason a man and a woman should be allowed to marry, rather than a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, is to do with their ability to procreate? I don't think it's only that.
I think what it's built upon is the truth. But is that part of it? That's part of it. It's based on the truth that men and women are different and complementary.
And that the act that unites a man and a woman is the same act that creates a new life. And the reality that a child has a mother and a father, and marriage is the institution that helps... incentivize the mother and the father that created the child to commit to each other and then to care for that child. So would you ban everyone over the age of 50 from getting married?
No, I mean that was a great question that was asked today during oral arguments and the response is that... But it is a great question because... It's a good question, there's a great response. People over 50, men and women, they can't procreate. So do they get banned?
Men are fertile, most men are fertile throughout the entirety of their lives. But a woman over 50 is unlikely to procreate. Right, so the marital norm still helps because if the man is faithful to his wife, he's not creating fatherless children. Right.
Government's not interested in regulating my love life. Everyone's free to live and to love as they choose. Government's interested in the marital relationship, because the unions of men and women can create kids.
What about prisoners? At the moment, under your logic, prisoners have a fundamental right to get married, even if they're in prison and can't actually have sex with anybody. Yes, there's a problem. You would rather defend a prisoner's right to get married than you would Susie Orman's right to get married to her partner. Yep, so the Supreme Court looked at these cases about...
Am I right? Is your answer to that question yes? The Supreme Court looked at these cases about the fundamental right to marry for prisoners, and they understood, again, because what marriage is, is a union of a man and a woman, prisoners have that same right, partly because they come out of jail, and they still have lives.
It's not as if once you go into jail, you're there forever. But do you understand why I feel... And they can still carry on relationships. Right, but Ryan, do you understand why I feel, especially with Susie sitting here, an incredibly successful American business icon, and...
who's been in a 12-year relationship with a woman she loves very deeply, I find it extraordinary that you, as a fellow American, would be quite happy to see a prisoner's rights upheld to get married, and you'd be quite happy to have a principle which says it's about procreation, even if people are 60 or 70 years old and can't procreate if they're women. But you don't want Susie to have the right to marry the woman she loves. I find that...
Bizarre, but I want you to explain to her what's wrong with her. I don't think there's anything wrong with you. I think all Americans have the right to live and to love how they choose to. And we don't need government redefining marriage to make that a reality. But if Suzy wants to get married though, you don't want her to have the same right as you to do that.
Who is you to say that? I mean, with the greatest will in the world and the best respect, and I understand you're not the only person in America... who feels this is a polarizing issue, even though it's moving very fast, as you know, in the polls in favor of same-sex marriage. But I just find it odd that you want a certain right for you, but you don't want to afford it to someone like Susie. I want the right to marry to be for everyone.
The question is, what is marriage? I think that marriage is intrinsically, what it is, is a union of a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, a mother and a father. But I think all adults should be free to live and to love as they choose. They can join a religious community that will perform a wedding.
In all 50 states this is legal. They can join a place of employment that will give them marriage benefits. In all 50 states that's legal. You don't necessarily need the government calling your adult... relationship, a marriage, to live and to love how you want to.
Okay, Susie, I've heard, right? Haven't I been good? I was really silent.
I was really silent there. What are you really feeling right now? Because this is the debate laid bare. This is a guy sitting a few feet away from you who says, Nope, I don't want people like you to be able to have the same right to get married. I have to tell you, I feel compassion for you.
And I'll tell you why, because I know that you believe very strongly what you believe, but I also know that you're very, very uneducated in how it really, really works. That you say... And I believe from the bottom of my heart that if you really, really understood why the government does need to get involved, why it does need to be legal on a federal level, if you really understood that, there is no way that you would sit there and say what you are saying right now. So why do you assume that I'm ignorant?
I mean, you assume that I just don't know. I don't assume anything badly about you. No.
I just think we disagree. President Obama himself has said that there are people of goodwill and sound mind on both sides of this issue. I agree with the president.
And so I'm not going to call you names, and I'm not going to say you're ignorant, that you don't understand. But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of the earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that. Listen, you have your facts down.
I think there are good reasons for that. You are really a great recorder. Here's one fact, Susie.
Where does the American Constitution... Say that a same-sex couple can't get married. The Constitution doesn't, which is why the Supreme Court shouldn't say that. But just to clarify, it doesn't say that. You have assumed that that is the position that America should adopt.
I think that citizens in 41 states have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and the U.S. federal government has done that in the Defense of Marriage Act. If you want to change those laws, we can have a discussion, we can take a vote, we can let the democratic process work its way out. But I think the constitutional question before the court right now isn't whether or not same-sex marriage is a good or a bad idea. It's whether or not citizens have constitutional authority to pass laws about what marriage is. Let's go to a question from someone else in the audience.
This is Fallon Becker. This is an interesting question. It's on the same theme. And it actually cuts to, I think, what Susie was about to get to, which is the economic reality, never mind anything else, about this debate.
Hi, Susie. So I was wondering what the economic benefits are for children. who are being raised by gay parents who can get married. Yeah, there's tremendous economic benefits, and I'll get to that in one second.
And, Paris, there's also tremendous economic disadvantages to not being able to be married, which is why I said I don't think that this gentleman really understands it. While it is true that every state can say that does the nine states, you can legally get married, it means nothing on... the federal level.
That means what? That means we don't get to partake in estate tax. We each have to pay estate tax no matter what. It means here I am and I'm married to KT and I'm covered under insurance for my corporation and I want to cover her. If it's not recognized, KT has got to pay income tax on that health benefit.
That could be three to five thousand dollars a year if we were legally married. Recognized on the federal level, KT would not have to pay a penny. Then we have all kinds of things such as Social Security.
Let's just say KT never worked her entire life. And now we're older, I'm going to be 62 here, I'm going to be able to collect Social Security as we get older. As a legally married couple on a federal level, KT would be able to collect half my Social Security.
Upon my death, she would get my entire Social Security. But not now. We don't get to participate at all for a child.
Let's just say you're in a relationship and you have children and they're legally your children. And you're staying at home with your children and taking care of them and raising them just the way that I'm sure this gentleman would like you or thinks children should be raised. You have the privilege to be able to stay at home because not everybody does. And the money is being brought in by your spouse who is a woman. And now.
she dies. You can't get social security based on her income. You can't get the widow's benefit.
So there's all kinds of things. Okay, Brian, you've heard Susie there spelling out loud and clear the key issues at stake. It's all just about the issues you raised.
There are sound economic reasons why it's just unfair, never mind anything else. So I think we can craft public policy that treats all Americans fairly. ...out redefining marriage. So I'll give you an example. The case tomorrow before the Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act, it involves a same-sex couple when one of the spouses passed away, the other one was hit with the inheritance tax, like you mentioned.
I'm a fellow at the Heritage Foundation. For the past 15 years, we've been urging Congress to repeal the inheritance tax because the death tax is bad tax policy. And you can ask yourself this question.
What if instead of being a lesbian couple, the two women in question were just elderly sisters who lived together, loved each other? had shared their lives together all their life, one passed away, the other one was hit with the inheritance tax. Is there any reason why the lesbian couple would deserve the tax break and not the two sisters? I think this is evidence, to my mind, that what we could do to fix this is craft better tax policy, not redefine marriage. The problem is, however, right now estate tax for most people aren't a problem because it's a $5 million estate tax exemption.
So if that had happened now... we wouldn't be in that situation. But how about health benefits? How about social security?
You are dealing in an economic situation right now where it's like, are they really going to recraft tax policies? Do you really think that's possible? Is that what you think is going to happen? We don't want to obscure because I think these are secondary issues.
The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children. Everything we've discussed so far has been about adult relationship. What is what institution would be left to show that... I don't know, one out of two people who get married in the United States of America, heterosexual marriage, gets divorced. Why?
The number one reason is arguments over money. So marriage is not keeping people together sweetheart. It's not doing a very good job at it because we redefined it 40 years ago. It's not doing the function that you say it is and this isn't about children. It should be though, that's the problem.
No. Right? Because 40 years ago we redefined marriage. What if this love couple here, they never wanted to? Not every marriage will have a child.
Every child has a mother and father. And marriage is what connects the mother and the father with each other for the child. 40 years ago we redefined marriage...
No, marriage is what connects the husband and the wife together as one. For the sake of connecting a mother and a father with the child. Otherwise we could have the government out of the marriage business.
Audience, we have a large studio audience in here. What do you say to him? No. Really? You win in the court of this public opinion, but in America there are lots of people who agree with me.
And so we should have this conversation and not put it to a mob vote. The trouble, Ryan, as you just discovered in this audience, is that actually popular opinion is moving very, very fast. Mainly, I think, generational issues. How old are you? I'm 31. Right.
It seems to me that someone of your age still maintains this kind of view. Because I think mothers and fathers are important. And I think we need to have an institution that holds up the ideal.
Men and women are different, and that mothering and fathering are different phenomena. And that children need both. Wait one second.
He can talk all about what he thinks and his belief, and he's seriously in the minority, especially at the age of 30. Anybody at the age of 30, if you take polls all throughout the United States right now, they are way in the majority of like, what are you people even talking about? issue is this but pierce more than this being what he says mother father it's about two people being able to have the ability to say i love you and i want to be with you forever it's about sitting at a thanksgiving dinner and while the kids are at the table asking the other people well when did you meet how was your wedding how did you get married and their kt and i are sitting and nobody's asking us well i saw elton john and his uh and his partner david furnish of the day was there The second baby they've now got, I've never seen two more loving parents in my life. And the idea that you, Ron, the best one in the world, the idea that you want to stop people like Elton and David or Susie and KT from getting married in America in the modern era, I just find a bit offensive these days.
It's not fair, it's not tolerant, it's not American. Anyway, let's take a break.