Prop 8 Goes to Court
VELEZ MITCHELL: Defense attorneys have until Friday to have an 8- year-old examined, hopefully, to determine what made him shoot his father and another man in cold blood. What will they discover? We will find out and tell you. It`s been one week since Prop 8, the ban on gay marriage, passed in California, and furious opponents are not letting up. The fight over this measure now making its way from the streets to the courtrooms. Three, count them, three lawsuits have been filed in the hopes of reversing Tuesday`s decision. Meantime, conservative backers of the ban vow to do everything in their power to defend it. So does Prop 8 have any chance of dying out legally, or is its place in California`s constitution unavoidable? Joining me now, Matthew Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, an organization actively involved in upholding, or trying to uphold, this proposition. Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, obviously in opposition to the new law. Evan, one legal challenge based on the concept that this is a bogus amendment to the state constitution, that it should not be an amendment. It should be a revision. Please, in plain English, explain the difference.</s>EVAN WOLFSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FREEDOM TO MARRY: Sure. California has two ways to changing its constitution. One is for, let`s just say, routine ways, and that`s the easy way. The other is for changes that are much more profound, much more grave, much more threatening. And that requires a much more stringent, more careful and more deliberative process. The anti-equality forces behind Prop 8 chose to go the wrong way. And so what Governor Schwarzenegger has said and what the attorneys representing cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and others, are saying this would be a terrible precedent to allow a simple majority to avoid the rules and pass an amendment to the constitution that`s there to protect all of us, instead they ought to follow the rules.</s>VELEZ MITCHELL: So Matthew from the Liberty Counsel, essentially what opponents of Prop 8 are saying is, "Hey, we`re going to go to court. We`re going to get this overturned by saying that it should have been billed as a revision, not an amendment. And a revision requires that you go to the state legislature and get a 2/3 approval in the legislature before handing it to the people.</s>MATTHEW STAVER, FOUNDER/CHAIRMAN, LIBERTY COUNSEL: Well, this is like a Hail Mary pass with no wide receivers down field. But we obviously have to take it seriously. But it really has no foundation, no legal merit. A revision is where common sense would say you revise multiple sections of the constitution. In this case, it`s a sentence -- 14-word, single sentence. And it simply restores the status quo that it`s always been in California. And that is marriage of the union of one man and one woman. This is purely an amendment.</s>VELEZ MITCHELL: Matthew, are you married?</s>STAVER: I am married.</s>VELEZ MITCHELL: Do you like the idea of being married? Do you enjoy it?</s>STAVER: Sure, I do. But that`s not the point.</s>VELEZ MITCHELL: Why do you want to stop other people from getting married? What is your -- why do you care what other people do?</s>STAVER: Well, I think the people care, obviously.</s>VELEZ MITCHELL: No, why do you care? I`m asking you why you care?</s>STAVER: Why I care is because marriage is a fundamental foundation of the family. It`s obviously historically been through time and geography and political boundaries the union of one man and one woman. Four judges a few months ago had a rule that was different. But it really was contrary to the history of California, the constitution. And the people set that right by amending their own constitution by a majority of people of California. And that needs to be respected.</s>VELEZ MITCHELL: There are other states that have allowed gay marriage, and the economy hasn`t collapsed -- actually, it`s collapsed. But because we`re in an economic mess. You can`t blame it on the gays, Evan.</s>WOLFSON: That`s right. And I think you really just put your finger on it. The fact of the matter is it`s because marriage is important. It`s a personal choice that matters to people who`ve made a commitment to one another in life that they should have an equal commitment under the law. And what Prop 8 does is say that something that`s a fundamental right, a fundamental freedom, can be taken away by a simple majority from a small group of people who the court has said should not be denied. So it`s protection in that respect. And if the freedom to marry is important to Mr. Staver, why should it be denied to other Americans who made a similar commitment in life and want to have that protection, that support and that love?</s>VELEZ MITCHELL: Let me ask you this, Matthew. Let me ask you this question. I mean, if they can pass this law saying that two people of the same sex can`t be married, what`s to stop, let`s see, an initiative that says blondes can`t marry redheads or people with bad teeth can`t marry people with perfect teeth? Where does it end?</s>STAVER: Well, that really is a different. That`s comparing apples to oranges.</s>VELEZ MITCHELL: Not really.</s>STAVER: What we have is the historic, fundamental common sense definition of marriage as the union of a man and a women. And it`s always been that. It`s only been a couple of months in California that it`s not been that way. And this is just restoring it to its status quo. We never have allowed anywhere in history all kinds of union of anyone`s choice under the rubric of marriage.</s>VELEZ MITCHELL: But history is about -- isn`t history about moving forward? I mean, we used to have slavery. Does that mean we should have slavery? We got rid of something that is awful.</s>WOLFSON: Not only that. It`s also -- Mr. Staver is wrong when he says marriage has always been one thing. The history of marriage is a history of change. In this country marriage used to be a union in which you were locked in for life, even if the relationship were failed or abusive. And we changed that. Marriage used to be a union that had to be of people of the right race. And somebody couldn`t marry...</s>STAVER: It`s always...</s>WOLFSON: Let me just finish.</s>VELEZ MITCHELL: All right, all right. Guess what, guys. Unfortunately we`re out of time. But we want to bring both of you back to continue this discussion because it`s not going anywhere. Not going anywhere. Next up, could a key figure in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway have lured women into becoming prostitutes? We`ll tell you. We have shocking video.