Conversation | 05/28/2008 9:58 am

Liz Smith: Gays Don't Have the Same Rights as People on Death Row

With Candice Bergen, Lesley Stahl and Liz Smith

Editor’s Note: Featuring Kathleen Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a professor of communications and the former dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

LESLEY: This month, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban against homosexual marriage. They say things happen in California first and then spread across the country.

LIZ: But isn’t it likely, Lesley, that this California ruling does not mean very much? That it could be rescinded before we even get used to the idea?

LESLEY: Do you think that if they do put this to a vote that the public will overturn it? Go the other way? Ban homosexual marriages?

LIZ: I don’t know.

LESLEY: Candice, you …

CANDICE: Well, it happened already.

LESLEY: Yeah, that’s right. They voted against it. So we think this could easily be overturned?

LIZ: I think the marriage struggle for gays is going to be a long time coming. But eventually it’ll happen because just as with movements in women’s liberation, a lot of positive things have already taken place. Let’s consider this: A gay woman named Ellen DeGeneres has the most popular talk show in America. She even outstrips Oprah Winfrey. Doesn’t this say something? I think people are really kind of conflicted. Sometimes they’re sneaky and fuzzy when it comes to homosexuality. They go crazy over one demonstration of it, and then they’ll ignore another. And TV and entertainment – now you see they use gays as come-ons, lively examples, for emphasis. They use gay characters the way the movies sort of used the black comic Stepin Fetchit. The networks get a lot of bang for their gay buck.

LESLEY: This is definitely an issue that is generational. No question about it. People under a certain age are ho-hum on this issue. They don’t understand the controversy, and if they come out in large numbers to vote in California, I think that could have a huge effect on how it goes, if it’s put up to a vote this time.

CANDICE: If that’s true, it could also have a huge effect on McCain.

LESLEY: That’s right. What are you picking up on this, Kathleen? Anything?

KATHLEEN: It puts the position that candidates have taken on the Defense of Marriage Act into play in the presidential election. And I think that’s the way we’re going to see it play out. We’re going to see the discussion happen indirectly in relationship to that previous vote, or that previous position.

LESLEY: Are they different?

KATHLEEN: Yeah. The question is, do states have to recognize a marriage from another state or not? That’s one of the issues. And I do believe McCain and Obama are different.

LIZ: Do you remember that a lot of people felt that the Republicans brought up the gay marriage issue and that it helped defeat Al Gore, even though he won the popular vote? So I’m wondering if this was brought up this time to make it an issue again. Or did it just happen?

LESLEY: Well, the Supreme Court of California made the ruling, so it would be hard to see how it was done deliberately to affect the campaign.

LIZ: I had a gay kid say to me the other day, "Men and women on death row can marry people on the outside. They’re allowed to get married. And gays want the same rights as people on death row." I thought that was pretty good thinking.

LESLEY: I didn’t know that. Is that true?

LIZ: Well, women and men on death row are allowed to get married. Sure.

LESLEY: Oh, I see. They’re allowed to get married … not to each other.

226 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong but I wanted to address Arelene C’s point about the vote in California against allowing marriage between gay couples. I believe this relates to the Jefferson Doctrine. Under our constitution the states are afforded great leeway to determine their laws and governance but our constitution sets boundaries such as the right to equality and liberty. I believe the CA Supreme Court was saying that CA has overstepped the boundaries of what they can legislate. So even if the majority supports something that violates a persons constitutional rights it will be prohibited constitutionally. The argument with regard to the supreme court is whether the supreme court should be strict constructionist or more interpretative. If you are a strict constructionist you probably can’t support the decision in Roe v Wade and feel it should be a state by state decision. With regards to the ability of gays to marry it seems to me constitutionally protected. We may be a religious nation but there should be separation from religion when it comes to the laws. I think the word “marriage” has a religious connotation to most people and that is why we hear politicians support “civil unions”. Though my understanding is that civil unions do not give all the same rights as marriage. But if we are honest there is no honesty in marriage vs civil union. If individuals do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then we should defend their constitutional rights and not discriminate due to their sexual orientation or religion or race.

By Candace Wood on 05/28/2008 6:12 pm

e-mail alert

Here is the opinion; but it is LONG: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF If you read it you will see that it is based on the limits of the California Constitution’s rights of a equal treatment and a fundamental right to marry. Weddings begin on June 17th. The retailers are ready. Last week the SF Chronicle had an ad for a mattress with two smiling women lying on the mattress together. Someone predicted a run on Pottery Barn.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 05/28/2008 8:08 pm

e-mail alert

Wow That is long, I’ll wade my way through it tomorrow in the morning when the old mind is a tad sharper :-) Thanks Elizabeth.

By Frank Peterson on 05/28/2008 8:50 pm

Candace: good points all, and I agree with your conclusions. States rights has been a mess since the beginning of this country and exacerbated by the Civil War. That war was about state’s rights against the federal government. Yes, there were other issues but that was the basis of the conflict. After that war states rights were pretty much trampled on for a long time. I’m no constitutional lawyer but have studied a lot of American history and frankly congress is eventually going to have to deal with this again and resolve issues like California’s current problem. The current Supreme Court is once again in it’s historical swing to the conservative. What’s going to happen is a crapshoot in many ways. Gay rights are protected in the constitution as are everyone’s as you say. However, what SCOTUS does and what the California Supreme Court did may not be the same. And then loggerheads again. I believe what the California Court did was correct and not because I’m a flaming liberal but because everyone’s rights are protected under the US Constitution, whatever the people may say.

By Frank Peterson on 05/28/2008 6:36 pm

Frank and Deni Everyone has their own definition of marriage and they have a right to have it. I don’t think Bean should be made fun or, or the name she uses be made fun of. She is who she is and her viewpoint is the same as a majority of Americans. They have a right to say and feel what they want about marriage. To her, it seems that marriage is sacred between a man and a woman. She may hold that beautiful and shouldn’t be made fun of.

By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 7:54 pm

e-mail alert

Franni? Did I make fun of her? I don’t think I did—she’s a right to here opinion but love is not just a sex act. And I’m not sure her viewpoint is the same as the views of a majority of Americans. And I certainly didn’t make fun of her name.

By Frank Peterson on 05/28/2008 8:13 pm

Frank I know you didn’t make fun of her name, but other people have at times. You know how I feel about being able to say what you want to. There are probably many people that are reading this now that totally disagree with gay marriage. That is their right. It seems to me that when it gets into the constitutionality of the issue, sooner or later it is going to pass. To be honest, I don’t care about the issue, and many people feel the same way. They don’t see it as a big deal. So we shall see what happens.

By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 10:28 pm

e-mail alert

Dear Frannie~ Tolerance is always commendable. You are a fine person. As to me, I was actually controlling myself, quite well, in my response to bean. I respect a person’s definition of marriage, until the moment that definition, infringes on the rights of others. When a person claims that another lifestyle is only sex, while theirs is sacred, then I find nothing even slightly beautiful or respectful in their opinion. And I do not think my humor was out of line in the least. I was not making fun of what she thinks of ‘her’ marriage. I was making fun of an attitude, that I find, highly offensive. I find beans’ words highly offensive and disrespectful. You are right, I do not respect bean. Why would I? And… I have never made fun of bean’s name…yet. Bean’s viewpoint is not the same as a majority of Americans.

By Deni G on 05/29/2008 11:00 am

e-mail alert

Hi Deni You are right and I apologize. I didn’t mean you guys, I just got confused on the thread while trying to do the payroll. I shouldn’t have even been on the thread . I sorry, I really am especially because I like you so much. You really did control yourself didn’t you? Ooooo Deni, I agree about the definition - she has a right but so do gays have a right to define it for themselves. When I red Chef Zee and how it made her feel, and that she didn’t feel that she had the same rights, or was not considered an equal and this is the main crux of the argument. And she is right - she does have a right. In fact, that is what the judge said in the CA Supreme Court, and he felt it was like civil rights in the ‘60’s for African Americans. Deni, as I have said in other posts - this country is Center/right. I don’t see that as good or evil - that is just the way it is. It is hard to let go of old concepts. Essentially, it is only going to change a word, because marriage is essentially a civil union. Once conservatives get their head around that, it will be easier. And you would be surprised Deni, a lot of my conservative friends could care less. They say, why not, who cares? It is changing.

By Frannie Em on 05/29/2008 12:57 pm

e-mail alert

Hi Frannie, Even if you were referring to me, I would be o.k. with that. I also like you, very much. bunches and bunches! I disagree that the country is center/right. What the right calls far left is mainstream, whether it pertains to Iraq, health care, reproductive rights, or most economic issues. When people are polled on the issues, the progressive position is the mainstream position, even though when asked where they stand generally, they may say they’re more on the conservative side. I do care about this. Because it is, in my opinion about equality. When ignorance, emotional fear and religious zealotry are allowed to drive the denial of equality to anyone, it threatens the equality of everyone. It is a mistake, I think, to see gay persons as “them” and their concerns as separate from mine. Because it could just as easily be my rights that are denied, tomorrow. From a purely pragmatic view, the rights of any one us, concern the rights of us all.

By Deni G on 05/29/2008 2:24 pm

e-mail alert

Deni It may not be center/right, but mainstream is not far left. Pollsters work for organizations, and many times when a poll is taken the wording is structured to get certain responses. So I don’t always trust polls. I do a lot of community service and when you ask the people and hear their opinions, it sounds more center/right to me. Most polling is done in urban areas, the suburbs many times are more conservative. When I ask my conservative friends if they why they voted for more democrats in ‘06 they said “corruption” - I asked “not the war?” They expressed that didn’t have has much to do with it. They didn’t want our soldiers deaths and efforts to be wasted. Predominantly - they said get the corrupt bums out. They have failed miserably. Boom, they did it. So I don’t know. I think it is different everywhere.

By Frannie Em on 05/30/2008 10:54 am

e-mail alert

Deni, I am glad you mentioned that I said “I don’t really care about this.” I didn’t mean it like that, I meant I accept it and don’t have a problem with it. I cannot honestly say that I have always been comfortable about it - because of learned concepts about sexuality that lingered in the back of my head. I examined those concepts and then let them go - and then it wasn’t an issue with me anymore - and I didn’t care, meaning it didn’t bother me anymore. Keep it a civil rights issue and it has a better chance of getting passed.

By Frannie Em on 05/31/2008 1:19 am

e-mail alert

This is the first time I’ve felt like I could vote for Obama. I don’t like the man, don’t trust him and think he would be a weak president at best. But the Supreme Court – how could I not think of that? Thanks, Liz.

By L H on 05/28/2008 9:49 pm

e-mail alert

Ah yes, getting back to the U.S. Supreme Court and the next President of the U.S. I hope the Supremes do not choose the president again; I have had enough of that for a millenium or two. But I do hope that the President who is elected chooses better justices than the last couple that were appointed. The Court is out of balance. Losing O’Connor meant not only losing the first woman justice; it also meant losing the only justice with experience as a legislator. The Court is not diverse. Eight members are male. Eight members are white. Five members are Catholics. While I usually believe they mean well, Bush v. Gore being a huge exception, they just can’t do a good job if they don’t at least have some insight into what it means to be from different segments of the population, different parts of the country, different ethnicities and sexes.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 05/28/2008 10:10 pm

e-mail alert

Yep, Elizabeth, they are too politicized and I agree with the rest of what you say—the election of Bush and the disaster that succeeded is strictly in their laps—they should have stayed the hell out of it. But spilled milk now.

By Frank Peterson on 05/28/2008 10:20 pm