ABC-7 Xtra: Gay Marriage

>>> live, where news comes first, this is “abc-7 xtra. >>> i now pronounce you wife and wife. you may kiss the bride. [ applause ] >> it was a kiss they feel was worth the wait. the supreme court legalizes same-sex marriage and the impact of that decision being felt strongly in the borderland. good evening, i’m maria garcia. welcome to “abc-7 xtra” on th historic week. the country is still coming to terms with this new america, one where gender will no longer determine who you can marry. but in texas, some say a new battle has just begun. a fight, conservatives say, for religious freedom, and cities like el paso are already in conflict with the state. the attorney general of texas ken paxton today issuing a controversial opinion, saying county clerks, county employees and judges can refuse to issue gay marriage licenses if it goes against their religion. he says it depends on the case, but that if other judges are willing to wed gay couples, those who would violate their religion don’t have to do it. that’s in direct opposition with a directive by el paso county attorney jo anne bernal, saying when judges choose to marry people, they are acting on behalf of the state, not themselves, and the judges must be impartial and not biased. she says refusing to marry gay people would now be a violation of the constitution. and joing us tonight: david marcus with join us for justice, an organization that advocates for the separation of church and state. and the conservative viewpoint, robert cormell who founded teen center el paso. if you have questions or comments, you can call us at 496-1775. email us at abc7xtra@kvia.com. or you can tweet me at @mariagabc7. before our discussion, let’s get a recap of the monumental week. >> the four words etched onto the front of the supreme court “equal justice under law applied to us, too. it’s my hope that the term “ga marriage” will soon be a thin of the past, that from this day forward, it will simply be “marriage. >> the man behind the now-historic lawsuit reacting to the supreme court’s decision to make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. justice anthony kennedy was the deciding vote in the narrow 5-4 decision. >> it’s been, you know a long time since it hasn’t been legal, so now that it came forward, we said it’s time, it’s time. >> and in el paso, these women, the first lesbian couple to tie the knot here. >> the fact that some married couples do not live up to their high calling should not lead the government to redefine this unique and fundamental institution. >> reaction divided in the borderland, too, though. bishop mark sites said that marriage was protected for thousands of years, seen as a life-giving relationship and the foundation of a healthy society. >> i would just respectfully tell them my faith wouldn’t allow me to participate in that kind of wedding. i certainly don’t have anything against them personally. >> and some pastors saying they’ll refuse to officiate gay weddings. it’s a different story for judges. >> if the supreme court of the united states say that the law is that unions of same-sex couples are legal, then i am to perform marriages without bias or prejudice and that includes everyone. >> but state political leaders say it’s not as clear cut. governor greg abbott invoking texas’s the religious freedom restoration act, saying quote, “no texan is required by th supreme court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.” even attorney general ken paxton saying in a non-binding legal opinion that judges can refuse to marry gay people if it goes against their beliefs, though he admits they’ll probably face lawsuits. county attorney joanne bernal going against those officials, saying judges are acting on behalf of the state when they choose to marry people and must be impartial. she says judges who refuse to marry gay people would be violating their constitutional rights. >> let’s start our discussion. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having us. >> before we start our discussion, i want to first allow both of you to tell us what your position is on gay marriage and this week’s ruling. david, we’ll start with you. >> well, i think it was — it’s a decision that i wish had come decades before. i don’t see it as gay marriage. i see it as marriage. we’ve created a second class of citizens in our country. we’ve created laws that said they could not do everything that you and i could do if we were straight and it just didn’t seem right. so for me, i don’t see it as government deciding or redefining marriage, i see it as government taking marriage out of the hands of government, which is what should happen. i don’t think government should have any say in who marries who. i think it should be the decision of two consenting people, which is what a marriage contract is. >> okay. and robert, same question for you. >> that sort of contradicts itself a little bit because marriage, i mean the government doesn’t have any business being in it, they shouldn’t be in it. the supreme court should not have made this. it’s totally unconstitutional to make this ruling. the supreme court, it interprets the constitution. it does not make moral laws. moral laws are created my states and they should be held up by the states and this is why you have the situation with greg abbott. this whole situation comes down to the people that live in a state and they should be voting on it. that’s how it happens. you don’t have nine people dictating morality in a country. it’s wrong. and it’s not the democracy that we have in this country. it’s not how things work and it’s wrong. it has nothing we do with whether somebody’s grey or straight or you like them or dislike them, the truth is this is a power grab and the supreme court has no business ruling on moral issues. it’s not part of the constitution. they’re to interpret the constitution and that alone. >> and the state has no business ruling on moral issues, either. it’s a religious decision. religion shouldn’t be involved in making laws at the state. marriage has been based on religious law for centuries. it shouldn’t be. religion should have nothing to do with who determines who’s going to get married. >> well, when you don’t define something originally, then you don’t redefine it. the bible defined marriage between one man and one woman thousands of years ago. and so we come along and say we know what’s better, so we’re going to redefine it, separation of church and state should say we’re not going to get involved in this. the supreme court should have said we’re not going to get involved in this. this is a state by state issue. it’s a county by county. if somebody wants to do that, they have that and that’s why they’ve been voting over the last — >> you’re saying the same thing, though. you’re saying different things here. >> no. >> you just said the bible determined who could and couldn’t be married thousands of years ago and so — >> it defined it. >> okay. defined it but in true separation of church and state, we shouldn’t be using that definition if we’re talking about separation of church and state, though. >> well, they shouldn’t be worried about it because it’s not a definition or something that’s come up from the state or anything else. >> we shouldn’t be worried about it and we shouldn’t be defing it and we shouldn’t be using the bible — >> it’s already been defined. >> in the bible. in the bible. >> well, that’s who came up with it. >> exactly. and now, it’s time to take the bible definition of marriage out of state law altogether. >> well, i’m surprised that you — because you should be saying we should make something totally different, something called totally different than the bible because we don’t need it. we don’t need the bible. we don’t need anything out of the bible, right? >> no, no not at all. no, no, no not at all. that’s a common misconception. what we’re saying is the only way to guarantee your right to celebrate your religion any way you choose and the only way for me to guarantee that i have the right to celebrate my faith any way i choose is to make sure the state has no say in that. >> i’m going to interrupt you guys. >> and the supreme court, correct? >> i’m going to interrupt you. >> the supreme court — >> the supreme court just took it out of the states’ hands. >> i know but — >> shouldn’t have been in the states’ hands to begin with. >> they don’t have any business ruling on it. >> and it should never have been in the states’ hands to begin with. >> i want to tell our viewers, i just heard from our director, our phone lines are not working right now. if you have comments, i want to give you a heads-up, please refer to them on twitter, @mariagabc7 or e-mail us at abc7xtra@kvia.com. i know there are already phone calls but we’re having trouble getting those so please direct your comments on twitter or on th e-mail account, abc7xtra@kvia.com or @mariagabc7 on twitter. robert, a question for you. let’s get to today’s development. texas attorney general ken pax ton saying in an opinion that judges and county employees can refuse to issue gay marriage licenses if it goes against their religious beliefs. the supreme court, though, ordering them to do so, the county attorney saying when judges took an oath to perform their judicial duties, they took an oath to be impartial and to not perform those duties with any bias. wouldn’t a judge be biased if he chose not to marry gay people? >> this brings up a good question because i noticed something on your facebook. eventually, this will all bleed into what about a priest or pastor that does not want to perform a gay marriage? and i saw something on your facebook that this is not going to affect clergy. it will. this will continue to bleed over. what greg abbott and them, they’ve decided on that and that is totally up to them. if they want to decide that, i mean we have basically a supreme court ruling that says you’re to do this, okay. and so there’s not a whole lot you know, that can be done other than they can say hey, we’re going to secede from the union and we’re out of here as texans. and file that and go forward with that. >> there are a lot of arguments about what this will eventually lead to right, what this opens the door to and we’ve heard that a lot. but the reality right now is that this does not affect clergy so we’re speaking specifically about judges who are representatives of the state. would it be biased, would a judge be behaving in a prejudicial way if they chose not to marry gay people. >> if it’s against their convictions, and it’s against their religious convictions, i think that totally against what they believe and you’re forcing them to do something, that’s against the constitution, that itself is. >> but judges don’t have to marry people. they can choose to marry people. >> you just asked me that and the truth is if it goes against somebody’s convictions, why are we forcing them to do it? and this is the same thing before it was change marriage, if somebody wanted to live together, they’re welcome to do it. and nobody came to them and said well there are wacky people out there who will say you’re this or that but the majority of christians and people love people. it doesn’t matter what their sexual preference is. it doesn’t matter what they’ve done in their life. but the truth is they love them, they care about them and they’re not pushing jesus down their throat. they’re not making them do something. they’re free to be together and live together and have civil windows or whatever. they didn’t have to redefine marriage. >> i want to ask you this. >> can i correct a misstatement. >> go ahead. >> the priests, rabbis, pastors will never be forced to do anything that goes against their religious faith. that’s an absolute guarantee in the first amendment of the u.s. constitution. and it’s an argument that the christian right keeps throwing out there, and it’s constantly been proven wrong. >> like nine — [ overlapping speakers ] >> you’re telling me that after five people made a decision to change the definition of something that has been the same for thousands of years. and you want to sit here like you know — >> no priest, no pastor has ever yet been forced to do anything, even though it’s been legal in states all over this union, that’s number one. number two, why are you so concerned about who’s getting married? >> i’m not concerned about who’s getting married. i’m concerned about the definition. the definition — definitions of things matter. i don’t know if you understand that — >> only if you’re worried about who’s getting married. if you love everybody, who cares if they get married? what’s the concern? it’s not going to affect you. >> it’s totally changed the definition of marriage. >> how does that affect you? >> how does it affect me? it affects families and kids the most. >> how does it affect your family? >> because it takes something that is meant, it’s like taking two plus two and making it six. >> but how does it affect you? >> because it changes — how does it affect me? >> yes. >> it affects the people and the young people that you’re working with, that you’re spending time with, defing something that has been important — >> two minutes ago you said you didn’t mind if they slept together or live together. >> what you do on your own is absolutely — >> but you don’t want them to have a legal marriage? >> i don’t want — and i’m not for the definition of marriage being changed. >> robert, do you really believe that? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay. i have a question for you. let’s get to the legalities here. attorney general ken paxton saying judgesicide refuse to marry gay people, saying it depends on the details of the case and admitting they could face civil rights lawsuits. plus, he says that if there are other judges willing to marry gay individuals that it would not be an undue burden on the gay couple if another judge chose not to marry them. what do you think about that? >> i’m not a lawyer. so let’s start with that. you know, i’m going to say that it probably sounds like if it were not an undue bird and then there’s another judge available, go for it. let somebody else marry them. i don’t care. i think it’s probably a fundamental mistake for somebody to be employed by the state who doesn’t want to follow the constitution of the united states. as interpreted by the supreme court. so that’s going to be a problem for these people in texas, and i think that our attorney general, and i think our governor have a serious issue with that. and they’re coming out and saying that they support people not wanting to do it and not having to do it. i think it’s a problem for them, i seriously do. >> okay. we have to take a break. this is from nicole, the constitution says there is to be separation of church and state, therefore the legality of who can marry who cannot be decided by the bible and that’s nicole in northeast el paso. that’s our first e-mail. remember you can reach us by e-mail at abc7xtra@kvia.com. you can tweet me at @mariagabc7. we have to take a break. when we come back, we’re talking about the historic decision this week to legalize gay marriage across >>> our nation was founded on a bedrock principle, that we are all created equal. >> president obama this week reacting to the supreme court’s decision. a lot of people saying that this week cemented president president obama’s legacy with gay marriage, with the confederate flag coming down in some places and with the affordable care act being upheld by the supreme court. thoughts on that. >> i think certainly, the affordable care act cemented his position, his legacy i mean, as a president. i’m not sure that the same-sex marriage ruling from the supreme court had as much of an impact on his legacy, although it happened during his term, and he recently came out in favor of that. i think politicians and leaders have evolved over the years to come to that place where, you know, this has got to happen, it’s an unequal society if we continue to prevent it but i don’t see that as much as an issue — i don’t see that as helping his legacy as much as affordable care act. >> i do want to tell our viewers they just let me know that our phone system is working once again so if you have comments or questions, you can finally call us, the number, 496-1775. thank you to our engineers for working on that. ray on twitter saying does mr. cormell not understand that living together did not guarantee us the rights of a married person? and robert, i know you said what they do on their own time is fine, but you’re concerned about the definition of marriage but here’s ray saying living together does not give us the remain rights as being married. what are your thoughts on that? >> well, i feel the same way. what a person decides to do on their own is their business. what they do behind closed doors is their own business. but when you start taking things that are very, very important to our society, pillars is what i would call them, and you start knocking them out, you weaken our society. and i believe that when you take something like this and you start messing with the definition, you come along and you create a pandora’s box and one example, in colorado herald, there’s already a movement to change the definition of pedophilia and we have — you know when you start changing one person says we can change these situations like the supreme court did with this we’re going to take out these words and change this around and we’re going to make this an issue instead of continuing to make it a moral issue, you start screwing around with that stuff and you’re weakening the pillar that has made this country great. >> david, i see you reacting. >> robert, pedophilia, are you serious? listen to me for a minute. you can’t believe that. >> really? >> you can’t believe that. >> they’re trying to change the definition of it. and you have professors that are teaching in our schools today and they’re marked in the article, you can read the article, and they are — there’s a movement to do that. just like before the ’70s, there was homosexuality considered an illness. so these things have constantly changed and we will — when you start — when you start allowing people to change definitions of things, especially when they’re pillars in our society, they will mess up everything — >> and you know what robert? >> give david a chance. >> we’ve got to get you a new news feed. you’re worried about your religious freedom. you already told me you don’t have a problem if homosexuals live together, you don’t have a problem if they’re sleeping together, you don’t have a problem — >> god has a problem with that but i’m not going to go in there and say you can’t do this. >> but you don’t want them to sign a marriage contract? >> what what i don’t want is the definition — >> forget about the definition for a minute. >> well, it’s not just forget about it. >> forget about it just a second, you’re talking about clearly violating the equal rights amendment of the constitution, you’re talking about — >> what is equal rights. >> the 14th amendment. you want to create a second society, a second class of citizens. >> not true. >> because these two people can’t get married but you can, robert, because god said so. >> because the definition of what marriage is — >> constituted by the bible. >> by the bible. >> but that has — >> the very founder of what marriage is. >> no, let me give you another example. you are violating my religious freedom. >> no, i’m not. >> yes, you are. >> how is that? >> i’m a reform jew. i am a member of my jewish religion, reform judaism, nationally. >> great. >> for decades has come out and said same-sex marriage should be allowed, we have gay and lesbian rabbis and cantors, we have been advocating for this for years. let’s say there’s a member of my congregation who wants to get married but robert says no because we should not have marry between — >> robert didn’t say that, god said that. >> your god said it, not my god. >> well, i don’t know what god you serve. >> yeah, that’s the problem, robert. that’s the problem! that’s what separation of church and state is all about. that’s the whole issue! your god says one thing, my god says another! >> your god doesn’t say that, humans said that. when did your god — where in the bible? do you follow the bible? >> the same as you do, but you used make — [ overlapping speakers ] >> let me finish this. where in the bible okay saying, where does your god say that homosexuality is okay? can you give me — >> yeah, no, it doesn’t say it in the same place in the same book where you shouldn’t be eating bacon and you shouldn’t be eating meat and cheese, which you serve in your bagel shop. who decided that part was wrong? what god decided that was okay now? >> if you — >> okay, i have to interrupt you guys. we have to move on here, here. >> don’t change the definition of something. >> state senator — [ overlapping speakers ] >> and your bible. >> the state senator sent out a statement saying the attorney general twists the meaning of liberty when he uses it as a weapon to deprive certain people of their constitutional rights. let’s be clear, far right conservatives do not own the definition of marriage, nor do they speak for all religions. no church will be required to sanctify a marriage it does not approve of but all recollected public servants will be expected to follow the u.s. constitution. >> and those are facts, that’s all. clear and simple. listen, you are not a religious scholar but let me give you one example here. this is facts. >> you wouldn’t know if i was. >> probably wouldn’t but i’m guessing you’re not. but let’s say for a moment why don’t you follow certain rules in the bible? that are in the same book that talks about homosexuality? why don’t christians agree that you should not eat meat and cheese together? why do you eat pork? >> because the old testament is called the old testament and the new testament is the new testament. >> who changed it? >> when jesus christ came and died on a cross for your sins, that’s what changed it. >> so jesus christ changed that? >> jesus christ changed that. >> not now, not other scholars, nobody else? jesus christ came out and said you now eat meat and cheese together. >> what he said is all of those laws that are — see what the old testament was established for is so that you would realize that there was no way that you could ever be good enough to make it to heaven. and what christ did is he came and died for the stupid things that you and i would do, for the sins — >> okay, well, let’s not get into your religious theology right now, my point was you are — >> the answer is jesus changed that and when he came along, he changed everything and he said all those laws are wrapped up in love others as you love yourself and love god. >> and you need to start loving others as you love yourself, including gays and lesbians and they should be as equal as you and i are. >> we have to take a commercial break. when we come back, we’re going to northwest on north. >>> welcome back, let’s go to the phone lines. caesar in the northwest has a comment or question. >> do we not deserve the same, you know, rights as everybody else? as far as a family? without religious conviction? >> thank you so much. >> where is the religious conviction? >> he’s saying do they not deserve the same rights as everyone else in regards to a family? and right now, there are custody issues, there are gay couples in states where they cannot up until last week could not get married who had children together and if something happened to one spouse, then there were custody issues with their children. >> all of those things can be taken care of legally. there’s no situation — there’s not situations where people are denied the right — >> it happens all the time, all the time it happens. >> you have — >> you know people were dying and they couldn’t — people were dying and their spouses could — >> how long ago was that? >> a week ago in some places. >> , for example, if two women have been living together for a long time, i just read an article, this woman had a c-section, very close to death, they had a daughter together. and if she would have died in the operating room, which she was very close to, then her spouse or her partner, would not have been able to take custody of her daughter immediately after her death. or maybe not even thereafter because they could not be legally married. though they had been together and had been parenting this child for many years. there were questions of not having the same legal rights as an actual married couple. >> right but we’re putting out a lot of if she would have and this would have happened and this might happen, but the truth is this is what happens sometimes when you just don’t have a little bit of common sense. i mean, if someone went before a judge and said hey, we’ve been together 10 years, i mean what judge in their right mind would not have enough savvy to say hey, listen, this is the acting parent here, i mean — >> but robert, if you’re using hypotheticals — we shouldn’t use hypotheticals because we have to — >> your whole story was a hypothetical. >> it was an actual story but then why — [ overlapping speakers ] >> why use hypotheticals of saying what if this turns into pedophilia being redefined and what if pastors then lose their religious freedom? >> because it will happen. if this can happen here, don’t fool yourself, that five people again cannot make any other law. this is the problem with our country and we talked about this a little bit off the air just a minute ago but it’s like since — when somebody does not agree with somebody’s lifestyle, my brother left his wife and three kids, boom up and left them for another woman. was that wrong or right? >> that was wrong. >> well, who are you to say it was wrong? he thinks it was right. >> good for him. >> right but — i can’t tell my brother hey, what you did was absolutely wrong, i disagree with it, i’m very disappointed in you but — >> he had the right to do that. >> i can still love him. >> he had the right to do it. he had a marriage contract that he could actually break and he could go make another marriage contract, could he not because it was a woman that he was talking to that was married. >> i need to have take another phone call. nick on the east side, what’s your comment or question? >> mr. cormell please read the position by the supreme court. in it, justice kennedy assures religious people that they religious definition of marriage has not changed, only the civil one. please read that decision! thank you. >> thank you very much, nick and we have an e-mail from caesar, civil marriage is a civil institution. the supreme court simply recognizes that the state cannot deny civil recognition to the rights of lgbt people to marry under the 14th amendment. religious definitions have not been touched by this ruling. so mr. marcus is right that no one will be forced to marry anybody under the first amendment. mr. cormell, please read the decision, justice kennedy assured religious people of this. there were several kinds of marriages in the bible, not just the one you are championing. on the other hand, you want judges who are christians who refuse to marry people who deny the divinity of jesus, such as jews and muslims, if not you are singling out lgbt for discrimination already unconstitutional under romer versus evan. >> was that all one question? >> that was a long e-mail. >> that was a book. >> you know what the truth is i can’t — i can’t say hey, what is going to be taught in schools, you know, when you say oh, this is just a civil thing, this is not, you know — the bible — you’re — your definition has not changed at all. the bottom line is it will be taught to the children, the young kids, all this stuff that a lot of parents don’t want it taught and so — when you start saying that, when you delve in and you raise your family and your kids and you say this is what marriage means, and somebody comes along and you send them to school and they say no, this is what marriage means. this is — this is — >> that’s something you should be teacher in — reinforcing in your church, and in your family? but it’s not the state’s responsibility to do it. >> what happens when they go to school and you have professors down here, i mean great one, professor wren at utep that will say you can’t tell me there’s a god. >> if you taught your children, you’ve given them a good head, you’ve given them a good understanding of what you want them to believe, you’re going to have to let your children go and believe for themselves and think for themselves. that may scare you, robert. >> when you send them off — >> i have a lot of tweets and i have some calls and we’re running out of time, i want to make sure we get to them. joshua saying the ban on same-sex marriage was discrimination and unconstitutional. ray saying mr. cormell just compared my being gay to the decision of his brother leaving his wife. being gay is not a choice. eddie saying you should remind everyone what the response is to the ruling. joshua saying the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. reuben saying this debate is awesome and we have dora on the east side on the phone, what’s your comment or question? >> my question is now why are the lesbians and gays are going to be asking for next, for them to fly their flag under the united states flag? across the united states? what’s going to be next? this is shameful. >> there’s nothing shameful about equal rights. there’s absolutely nothing shameful about equal rights. >> okay. >> this goes back to saying they had every right in this country that anybody else has a right and if marriage wasn’t so important, that word, if it wasn’t so important to change the definition of it, why was it such a big deal? why weren’t they saying let’s call gay marriage this instead of marriage? because marriage is what they wanted. they wanted that word and they wanted to be able to use it and redefine it and that’s the problem. >> did you ever think that maybe they weren’t redefing it? maybe they were defing it the way they see it? maybe you see it one way based on your god and your belief and your faith, which is your right, and they see it a whole other way based on their god, their faith and their belief. >> and do you think i should be called a bigot? >> no, i don’t, i think you have the right to do that. i would defend your right under the first amendment of the constitution. but i’m going to tell you, i also want to defend their right to believe what they want or not believe anything at all, but still have the full equal rights allowed under our government to be married or not. >> and i need take an e-mail, rob says if the new marriage law is defined as founded by love, then i have two women who i love and they love me so why can’t i legally marry them? why stop morality at two people in love? david, do you want to address that? >> well, he’s talking about bigamy. and, you know, actually, it’s a subject that’s coming up in utah, i think the state of utah actually was talking about that because of the mormon church for so many decades actually allowed that. and there’s a case in utah in 2014 i think where a family with two wives was trying to avoid being arrested and something. for a temporary time, they were held to be legal. maybe he needs to move to utah. >> well, we’ve run out of time, i’m sorry we went way over. but i wanted to give everybody equal time, thank you so much. >> my pleasure. >> thank you, thank you. >> i have a gift for robert. >> oh, my goodness. >> and, you know, i want to remind you. >> what does it say on the front? >> i respectfully disagree. and i expect you to have coffee in that every morning. >> this is the greatest thing about our country and as long as we can do this, is as long as we can debate and respect and love each other — >> did she promise you you would have the last word? >> that makes us better as a country. >> thank you so much for joining us