Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book TV 20120819

and it's a terrific book. >> thank you so much. [applause] thank you. >> booktv has over 150,000 twitter followers. follow booktv on twitter to get publishing news, scheduling updates, author information and talk directly with authors during our live programming. twitter.com/booktv. >> in just a moment on booktv, david lampo argues that support for gay rights by the political right is in accordance with conservative ideologies of limited government. the author contends that social conservatives that refute this are being hypocritical. the event from the cato institute in washington, d.c. is about 90 minutes. [applause] >> john, thank you for that introduction, and, michael, for agreeing to participate today. what i'd like to do in my allotted time is to briefly discuss the evolution of this book and why i wrote it, and then outline what i see as the three main themes of the book and then, finally, give a brief overview of a few of my faith chapters in the book. i completed the first draft of this in the spring of 2011 just as the early republican presidential primary process was getting underway, and the timing, i think, was quite good. even then, though, it was apparent that that field of republican presidential candidates were going to be the most outspoken anti-gay field of candidates ever. and yet there was rarely a word of criticism publicly spoken from mainstream republicans and the party establishment including those in congress about candidates like michele bachmann or rick santorum or rick perry. and their long history of bigoted remarks. it seemed to me that many of them, that is the republican establishment, were simply afraid to condemn such rhetoric and speak in favor of social tolerance. these leaders not just, were not just uninformed about gay rights issues, i think, but are, frankly, scared to death of any discussion of them. and i think that played into the hands and plays into the hands of organized bigotry. so what most analysts expected was going to be another election about economic issues and replacing much of the legislation passed by the obama administration, like the election in 2010, was suddenly hijacked by the so-called values voters crowd, and social issues were suddenly at the top of the republican list of priorities. often getting the lion's share of attention during those endless number of debates in 2011. such as when a gay service member was booed when asking a question during one of the republican debates. so in spite of the fact that in the race there were pro-gay candidates or pro-gay rights candidates like congressman be ron paul, former governor of new mexico gary johnson and former governor of utah jon huntsman, the general perception among most voters in the public was and, unfortunately, is that all the republican candidates were slavishly devoted to the religious and moral agenda of the christian right. and, of course, the media loved this attention to social issues like gay rights and similar issues because they love all the delicious sound bites that candidates like michele bachmann and rick perry and newt gingrich provided which allowed the, by and large, liberal media to spin their own narrative that all republicans are anti-gay. michele bachmann blamed it on two natural disasters last year, both a hurricane and an earthquake. newt beginning limp, -- gingrich talked about the sanctity of marriage, and said that president obama was conducting a war on religion simply because he allows gays to serve in the military. while most people find such remarks amusing if a bit wacky, they are designed to whip up hatred against gays and lesbian in order for these candidates, these particular candidates, to grab a bigger chunk of the christian right voters who make up a large portion of the republican base. now, this kind of rhetoric, of course, has been going on for years before this presidential race started. and it went into overdrive with the advent of the very controversial issue of same-sex marriage. it was almost two years ago that i decided it was time to write a fact-based primer on gay rights, specifically targeted to right-of-center voters, hence the subtitle of the books. to do two things, number one, to challenge the right on its own turf and to show much of what they derisively call the gay agenda is actually consistent with fundamental republican and libertarian principles and, number two, to show center-right voters who believe in social tolerance that not only are they not a voice in the wilderness, they actually represent a majority of rank and file republican voters. so the book has three major themes. the first one i just alluded to, that many on the right simply don't understand that properly understood gay rights are, in fact, perfectly compatible with fundamental republican principles of limited government, individual rights and equal protection of the laws. the essence of the classical liberal or libertarian philosophy is simply one of live and let live. all people are created with certain inalienable rights. the government does not dole out rights depending on what religion you are, what economic class you're in, what your gender is or, three theoreticalt least, what your sexual orr orientation is. certainly, most libertarians already get that, and i think that's why they have a special obligation to teach fellow conservatives why gay and lesbian americans deserve the same rights as anybody else. the second main theme of my book is that because of this constant, over-the-top rhetoric, most people have little understanding of what rank-and-file republicans actually believe ant gay issues -- about gay issues. and i think the conventional wisdom is that all republicans hate gays, and nothing could be further from truth. what i discovered in researching the polling data on this topic is that there is, in fact, a huge disconnect between the conventional wisdom that i just mentioned and the reality that a majority of rank-and-file republicans actually believe support gay rights, believe in and support gay rights. the reality is this: a majority of rank-and-file republicans supports merely all of the major planks in that, quote, gay agenda, unquote, that i mentioned. and i think that's one of the most interesting and important parts of this book. that's the message that needs to go out to all republicans and conservatives. the loud and hateful soys of the religious -- voices of the religious right leaders have silenced most of those republicans who believe in social tolerance, and their silence must now end. the fact is that polling data going back at least a decade shows consistent and growing support for expanding gay rights, including relationship recognition by republicans and conservatives. there's a lot of polling data in the book. i urge you the take a look at it. let me just pull out a few nuggets. polling by gallup, for example, going back at least ten years has consistently shown that 80% of americans -- which necessarily includes a majority of republicans -- favor a policy of employment nondiscrimination for gays and lesbians. virtually every other poll shows the same thing, including one just last year by the center for american progress that showed 66% be of republicans supporting that policy. but republican support for expanding gay rights doesn't end there. for at least five years, a majority of republicans have supported the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in our armed forces. and a 2010 gallup poll showed that even 51% of conservatives shared that view. today, according to a very recent national journal poll, a strong majority of republicans are satisfied with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. so that's actually the new normal in the republican party. relationship recognition for gay couples has certainly been the most contentious gay rights issue for all right-of-center voters, and even on this issue there's now majority support, according to most polls, among republicans for either marriage equality or civil unions. a cbs poll in 2010 showed 59% of republicans supported either same-sex marriage or civil unions. and a 2011 poll by public policy polling showed 51% in support. regarding support republican explicitly for marriage equality, a public religion research institute poll a year ago showed 37% of republicans supporting that policy. in a washington post news poll, a washington post/abc news poll for just this past march showed 3d % in favor of -- 39 in favor of marriage equality. and that same national journal poll i just mentioned showed that only 37% of republicans support a federal marriage amendment, completely different from what the conventional wisdom is. so i think these are all pretty astounding numbers. so the bottom line is this: while the percentages may vary from poll to poll, all of them show a clear majority of republicans, rank-and-file republicans, in favor of some kind of legal recognition of gay couples, in opposition to a federal marriage be amendment, in favor of open service in our armed forces and in favor of employment nondiscrimination. it is this reality and message of social tolerance on the part of the majority of republicans that must be spread and which is why i wrote this book. and i think it must be pounded into the heads of the republican establishment, which by and large continues to pander to the strident, anti-gay groups and leaders because they are the ones that make the most noise. that's the key to their success. it's time for socially-tolerant republicans to come out of the closet, and i think they are doing so in ever greater numbers. finally, the third major theme of the book is the support for gay rights isn't just the right thing to do in my view, it's also the politically smart thing to do. the voters that most often decide elections, after all, are independents. and the republican party has seen a progressive, precipitous decline from independents in presidential elections for the past 25 year. ronald reagan won them by a two to one majority, and yet by 2008 independents went for president obama by a 52-44% margin. independents, including host libertarians who identify as independents, came back in a big way in the 2010 election because it focused almost exclusively on economic issues. and that focus is credited by most political analysts for the big republican victory that year. what republicans need to remember about independents is this: they are overwhelmingly pro-gay rights. like other voters, they don't want to hear anti-gay proposals from candidates because they know gay people as family hebbs, friends or neighbors. on every major issue all the way up to providing equal benefits for same-sex couples, independents support gay rights nearly as strongly as democrats. even on same-sex marriage, a large majority of independents are in support. if republicans want to earn that support from independents, they critically need to win elections -- excuse me -- i think they will simply have to change their policies on gay rights issues because independents overwhelmingly reject the outspoke season and anti-gay policies promoted by the right-wing and anti-gay organizations that make up a lot of the republican base. let me turn thousand to just a couple of my -- now to just a couple of my favorite chapters. chapter two is entitled, "why the religious right is wrong about the separation of church and state." in it, i look at the belief that this is a christian nation. mind you, not just a nation of christians, but a government and a constitution based explicitly on biblical principles or values. this is a refrain you constantly hear from most social conservative leaders. and yet we know the founders explicitly avoided including religious language in the constitution. in fact, the words god, bible, jesus christ, none of those appear anywhere in the text. and that would be an odd thing, indeed, if our founding fathers had actually, in fact, tended to run -- intended to run the government according to biblical principles. in fact, most constitutional scholars acknowledge that the founders were intent on building what thomas jefferson called that wall of separation between church and state, even if that phrase doesn't appear in the text of the constitution. james madison, our fourth president and one of the architects of the constitution, wrote that religious beliefs, quote: are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction,. a view that is diametrically opposed to the agenda of most religious right leaders today. i quote other founding fathers and their objections to a bible-based state, and, indeed, some of their contemporaries actually criticize the founders for their explicit omission of religious references in the constitution. the reverend timothy dwight, for example, who was then-president of yale university, said the united states had, quote: offended providence because we formed our constitution without any acknowledgment of god, unquote. and yet in spite of this overwhelming historical evidence that the founders did, indeed, strive for that separation that thomas jefferson spoke of, most religious right leaders today continued to hock the very concept -- mock the very concept of a secular state. as their ozzy and harriet world of the 1950s fades from memory for most americans, the more religious right extremists have become more and more shrill about the massive cultural changes that have taken place over the past few decades and that will surely continue. and their increasing contempt for social tolerance or personal liberty which are really hamarks of the limited government they profess to believe in, indicates, i think, that they are no longer reliable partners or allies for those republicans and conservatives who actually do believe in limited government and individual rights. i think the so-called three-legged stool symbolizing the republican, the traditional republican coalition made up of economic conservatives, national conservatives and social conservatives, is broken. and i think it will and should remain broken until social conservatives give up their efforts to remake america into their own heaven on earth. another issue i write about is actually a a huge controversy going on within the evangelical community. in a section called "the glass houses of social conservatives." it centers around the explosion of divorce in the evangelical community and the obvious hypocrisy of its members when they pontificate about the sanctity of traditional marriage. the issue was raised not by one of their critics, but by albert molar jr., president of the southern baptist seminary. he wrote famously on his web site in 2010 that heterosexual divorce, quote: harms many more lives than will be touched by homosexual marriage the real scandal is the fact that evangelical protestants divorce at rates at least as high as the rest of the public. needless to say, this creates a significant credibility crisis when evangelicals then rise to speak in defense of marriage, unquote. i mean, it couldn't be truer. he labeled this hypocrisy, quote: a monumental scandal in the evangelical community, unquote. professor mark smith at the university of washington published an article that same year in political science quarterly in which he detailed this widespread problem that molar had written about, showing 43% of protestant evangelicals divorce, higher than almost think other religious group and higher than the national average of 39%. and yet as the professor points out, rarely do evangelicals propose legislative solutions for this problem. rather, divorce should be, in their view, addressed within the church rather than through public policy. a starkly different approach than they propose to address other biblical transgressions such as homosexuality. which many religious right leaders actually believe should be recriminallized even after the supreme court ruling nullifying all state sodomy laws in 2003. this evangelical hypocrisy is acknowledged even by the religious magazine christianity today after molar first made his remarkable remarks. its editor wrote, quote: we cannot very well argue for the sanctity of marriage as a crucial social institution while we blithely go about divorcing and approving of remarriage at a rate that destabilizes marriage. we have been perfect hypocrites on this issue. and be yet in spite of -- and yet in spite of this eternal and broad self-examines going on in the evangelical movement, most of its leading spokesmen and the religious right groups that claim to represent them rarely talk about any topic other than homosexuality and gay marriage. which seemed to have put even abortion as the main item on their political agenda, and you can see that if you go to their web sites. in fact, it's clear that an increasing number of self-identified evangelicals and christians are actually changing their views about gay rights and marriage. so a dialogue with at least some evangelicals, i think, is possible. in 2010 american values survey by the public religious research institute showed that 41% of christian conservatives support recognition of same-sex couples, mostly civil unions, but 16% for marriage. and in august 2010 poll by the same organization, fully 44% of evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29 -- the so-called millennials -- support same-sex marriage. these are big numbers. and i think it's fair to say that the religious right groups don't represent in the christian right movement. in this chapter, finally, i also have a section, "be careful what you wish if," in which i rehind religious voters they are not the only ones who believe in basing a government on biblical principles. there is, in fact, a long history of liberal and leftist religious activism in the united states based on a very different interpretation of what the bible commands. the national could council of churches, for example, has existed for over 60 years, and has advocated the modern welfare state as an example, a perfect example, of christian compassion and service to others. and the catholic left also has a rich history of in this kind of activism. even the modern environmental hiew. is found fondly -- movement is fond of asking rhetorically, what would jesus drive, for example. tying christian principles to environmental activism in a green economy. so there is, in fact, no shortage of political movements across the spectrum trying to run other people's lives, and the one thing they all have in common justifying their respective agendas on the basis of, quote, biblical principles, unquote. this, in my view, is precisely why we need to keep organized religion as far as from the halls of congress as possible. another favorite chapter i'll briefly review is chapter five, "is the tea party nation anti-gay?" ? most of those on the left would automatically answer yes or hell yes. yet the reality is that the tea party is a much more complex and diverse unit than many realize. it is emphatically not a mirror image of the christian right, although there is, of course, overlap between the two. from its very beginning, after all, the tea party had been mostly about economic issues. it was anger over those issues that sparked the movement to begin with, and it was that relentless focus on economic issues and a deliberate and conscious avoidance of social issues that have the cause of great success in 2010. as was written in "the new york times" in march of 2010, quote: god, life and family get little, if any, mention in tea party man manifestos. the motto of the tea party patriots, a large coalition of tea party groups, is fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets. unquote. leaders think they can attract independent voters if they can get away from those issues, and they were right. that has clearly been the key to their success so far. what are their general views on gay issues? strikingly different than those of religious right leaders and organizations. again, a few nuggets of the data. a cbs/thy times poll in 2010 showed, for example, while only 16% of tea party members favored marriage equality, 43% of them -- 41 president of them supported civil unions. one would certainly not expect to find 57% in favor of legal recognition of gay couples at a family research council event, i would wager. the public religion research institute's 2010 american values survey, the largest of its kind, by the way n surveying tea party members, reported similar findings about tea party members. 53% in support of relationship recognition for gay couples. this large pocket of support for same-sex recognition should come as no surprise given what the research, pew research center found in its own polling of the tea party movement. only 42% of self-identified tea party members agree with the conservative christian movement while 46% have no opinion of it or haven't heard of it, and 11% opposed it. striking confirmation, i think, that the religious right and the tea party are anything but synonymous movements. part of the reason, i think, for this much broader acceptance of social tolerance is the large number of libertarians in the tea party movement. i actually outlined three studies in the book, i show that approximately half of tea party activists are libertarians versus the more traditional conservative, that most people think make up the movement. and, in fact, a study by david kirby and emily ekins entitled libertarian roots of the tea party that confirms this widespread participation and the greater social tolerance that goes with it. and while the top religious right organizations like the family research council and the american family association campaign to defend doe ma, the defense of marriage act, many tea party sporters actually support efforts to revive the tenth amendment and give to states the freedom to decide marriage -- matters such as marriage law. many supported the federal district court ruling in massachusetts be -- massachusetts in 2010 that overturned section three of the defense of marriage act that forbids the federal government from recognizing valid same-sex marriages in those states that have adopted it. that decision on tenth amendment grounds was just recently upheld by a central appeals court and appears headed for the supreme court. i have a section on, chapter eight, i urge you all to read that. i'm running short on time, so i won't go into that. but that's actually a report card on all the major republican candidates that ran for president, detailing some of their background statements, and it's, for many of them, it's far worse. many be of them do not get a passing grade. finally, the good news about the republican party, i think, is that it's changing. certainly not as fast as i or others would like, but it is i detail a thurm of things in the -- a number of things in the book in chapter seven, i think, that show how it's evolving. and i think there are other examples. republican senators, for example, who voted to overturn and repeal don't ask, don't tell in december 2010, and they were key to that victory. to the four republican state senators in new york who put marriage equality over the top in that state. to the overwhelmingly republican legislature in new hampshire that just recently voted to keep same-sex marriage earlier this year. it had been legal, the religious right activists tried to get it repealed, were confident that they would get it repealed, and most republicans in the statehouse rejected that. so new hampshire continues to have same-sec marriage. republican office holders, i think, are finally catching up with the majority of americans, and all i can say is, it's about time. let me just close by reading a quote from barry goldwater who, as john alluded to, was one of my political heroes. quote: mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the republican party, and they're surely trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible problem. frankly, these people frighten me. politics and governing demand compromise, but these christians believe they are acting in the name of god, so they can't and won't compromise. the religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. i'm, frankly, sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me that if i want to be a moral person, i must believe in a, b, c or d. just who do they think they are? i will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all americans in the name of conservativism. thank you. [applause] >> thanks, david. thanks for mentioning that upcoming cato study. and so everyone can keep their eye out for that, it is a real eye opener and i think will be n many ways, the most definitive study of that particular political movement. our next commentator today really does these no introduction, but i'm going to give him one anyway. you'll know michael barone from his post as senior political analyst at the washington examiner or for having been over a decade a contributor to the fox news channel or, perhaps, also from his earlier career at u.s. news, ready's digest, washington post a career at the highest levels of american politics and commentary. but i'd like to mention three of his books, because i think the books he's written are important and continue to be and should be read today. his most recent, i believe, is entitled "our first revolution," a book about the glorious revolution in britain which everyone should know her about. his history, "our country, the shaping of america from roosevelt to reagan." we live in historical times, knowing more about that past, i think, now, and this book is an excellent introduction to the politics of that period. and, of course, michael is the principal co-author of the annual "almanac of american politics" from the national journal group, the leading -- i think it's fair to say -- commentary. and when you read that book, you wonder how does michael know all of that about every damn district this the country? it's an amazing book, i recommend it to you. michael barone. [applause] >> well, john, thank you very much, and thank you for the kind introduction. i -- you noted that both you and david have written books at mature ages, your first book. my "almanac of american politics" of which i'm co-author was written as long ago -- first edition appeared more than 40 years ago. i like to point out that it's highly unusual for the first edition of a book of this nature to have been written by someone at the age of 4. [laughter] but there we are. in addition, i am -- i come to you as a recovering liberal. [laughter] and with my transformation having come at a later stage in life than david's. so, um, i guess i'm being asked here in part because of one of my washington examiner columns on the same-sex marriage issue, i made the point that i was in favor of same-sex marriage, many of the same reasons in a book published years ago. i got some feedback from some of my examiner readers who seemed to be surprised. i felt that i should disclose that. i'm also a recovering pollster. i was in the public opinion polling business from is the 74 -- from 1974-'81, and i found myself as issues of gay rights came into politics, i found myself consistently wrong about where public opinion was going. i mean, during the 1992 campaign when bill clinton came out in favor of gays, openly-gay people serving in the military, i thought that would inflict terrific damage on him in that campaign. turned out i was totally wrong about that. it basically was a minor issue that was ignored by the voters. therefore, i thought when he came into office and proposed actually implementing gays in the military, that he would have no political problem. in fact, it caused something of a firestorm, i think in part because people said that shouldn't be your first order or one of your first orders of business. so i was consistently wrong about that. so i thought, well, you know, i've been wrong in both directions on this issue, it's one where i really don't seem to understand the american people and where they're going. and have not written about it substantially since. but in the 20 years since i was wrong in both directions, i think we've had a huge change in public opinion on this issue. and, in fact, probably the big -- or on gay rights-related issues. probably the biggest change or at least one of the biggest changes that i've witnessed in my lifetime, um, and i think, you know, growing up in the america of the 1950s and early '60s, this was -- and i think properly known as an era of conformism. it was an era of cultural uniformity. we had had those unifying experiences of the great depression and particularly of world war ii where we had 16 million men in the military serve us in a country of 131 million. it was a time when we really, everybody was supposed to be average and normal and so forth. and any breach of that was considered to be a big problem. it was a time when homosexuality was really taboo, was ridiculed. i am not familiar in any detail with the scholarship of some people who have written about attitudes towards or gays over history, but my impression from such reading as i've done and from my other surveys of american history is that that war and postwar period was probably a time when americans were more hostile to homosexuality and what they called deviants. than at other points in our history. that we were really, we went through an unusual period of lack of cultural diversity, or at least sanctions against it. you had, you know, you had people like robert kennedy ridiculing gore vidal for being homosexual at a party. polite company, gay jokes, disparaging jokes and remarks were just fine in polite company at every stage, and nobody objected to them in any serious way. and i think that david lampo's done us a service by illustrating this big change in public opinion, that we are hugely larger percentages of americans are now accepting of gay people and gay rights, and i'll use just the term gay and not go entwine lbgt just for purposes of being concise, gay rights in a way that simply was unthinkable in the america in which i grew up. i never expected to see anything like this happen. and we do have a considerable age break on this. i think this is perhaps the issue that i've observed over 40 or 50 years of observing polling data in which there's a big or difference between age groups. and to summarize, you know, if you ask opinion on same-sex marriage, the over-65 group, their basic attitude can be summarized as, yeah. if you ask the under-30 group their basic attitude is, well, yeah? and it's simply seen as uncontroversial. and what this mean, and david has provided some of the data here, is that this cuts across the lines of the partisan lines. so that both parties are diverse, if you will, in their constituencies are different on this. and we saw an illustration of this recently when president obama kind of wrong-footed himself by announcing that he had evolved sufficiently to come out in favor of same-sex marriage the day after voters in north carolina, a state he carried last time and wants very much to carry -- voted 61-39 against it. backers of gay marriage might have thought, gee, it might have been nice if the president had come out for this beforehand, but constituencies voted for him heavily and turned out heavily in 2008, but whose turnout is uncertain and volatile, and he wallets to insure their turnout -- he wants to insure their turnout. and that is young voters who, as i said, are heavily in favor of same-sex \ by margins of two to one or better. and the exit poll op the california referendum -- on the california referendum in 2008, we saw that white voters and asian voters came out, voted for same-sex marriage. that is against proposition 8 by a 51-49 margins. hispanics voted against same-sex marriage by a 51-49% margin. okay, it's chugging ahead and winning the election at this point. and black voters voted 70-30 be against same-sex marriage. now, those numbers are probably different among black voters in president obama's endorsement of the issue has probably changed some minds, but, you know, he did take time to do conference calls with black preachers, and there's a lot of pulpits and black churches now where the preachers are very much against same-sex marriage. and i think there's a resentment on the part of some quantum of black voters and leaders when supporters, advocates for same-sex marriage analogize their cause to the civil rights revolution. the blacks will say, look, the treatment -- you know, homosexuals haven't been slaves by being homosexual in the united states. there is a difference in experience, and that's a pretty strong argument. in any case, it's an effective one with some black voters. so the president wuss in the position of the -- was in the position of the old-time politician who says i'm always with my friends. [laughter] the north carolina referendum got him enough flak that he decided, including from many of his money givers, you know, who were strong backers of same-sex marriage that he should change his position. "the washington post," i think, made note that about a quarter of his bundlers are gay. you know, some gay people -- for some gay people this is not a front range issue, and for some non-gay people it is, so i don't think we should assume that people's sexual orientation automatically determines their position on this issue or the strength of their conviction, the priority they give it. but i think that's for people to determine for themselves. but it is a problem. so on the republican side, polling is shown, and perhaps david will contradict me if i'm wrong, that about two-thirds of republican voters are against same-sex marriage, but about a quarter are for it. >> [inaudible] >> a quarter. and perhaps higher. so republicans have some, you know, republicans have a split constituency on this as well. you know, obviously, the plurality there are for -- against same-sex marriage, but you've also got pluralities or majorities that are for some form of civil union, that are in favor of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and so forth. those are positions that are backed now. i think, you know, and particularly for young people in this room, this is hugely different from the america not only of the 1950s and '60s, but the 1970s and the 1980s. i mean, this is a big change. um, you find the, you know, this is, this is -- these issues were simply not issues before. i mean, david was active, he pointed out to me, in the california referendum proposition 13 on holding down property taxes in 1978. there was another remember dumb on the ballot that year -- referendum on the ballot that year, the briggs amendment. it banned gay people from being teachers and would require the firing of teachers who were identified as homosexual. and that was, seemed to be getting towards majority support in california. not as liberal a state then as it is now. interestingly, a former governor was persuaded to come out against this and to, and to cut a spot against it, i think, ronald reagan in 1978 which may have made the difference in defeating the briggs amendment at the polls. but that was kind of a daring position. it was the opponents of the briggs amendment went to governor reagan, had a meeting with him. of course, reagan had known many gay people being in the entertainment business and had friends who were, and he just thought it was unjust to hound people out of their jobs because of their sexual orientation, and he took that stand publicly even though he was preparing to be a republican, a candidate for the republican nomination once again. i think that says something good about president reagan, or governor reagan as he was then, but it also says that the fact he came out for this position was considered a surprise, was noteworthy, was vote changing. because in the environment that we were in, we were -- that was worthy of comment and something that most people wouldn't have expected. you simply didn't -- these issues simply weren't issues. if you could go back in time and talk to voters in -- or politicians in the '70, '80s, where are you on same-sex marriage, their response would have been huh? what are you talking about? nobody was out there advocating it in any way. i would take issue here with david's statement that the republican field of candidates was the most anti-gay field in history. i would argue that the field of republican and democratic candidates by the standards of today's issues in all these years was more anti-gay than the republican standard because none of them were for same-sex marriage, none of them were for civil unions. most of them were, if you brought up the issue of saying should you criminalize homosexual behavior, would say, well, sure. and that was true of democrats, it was true of republicans. you know, like the abortion issue but for even longer, you know, same-sex -- homosexual behavior was an issue of criminal law more than it was anything else, and the key question was how much you wanted to criminalize it. and what degree and what the penalties should be. so i think it's an issue today that is very different from what it was in the past. my own view is that we are going to move towards more acceptance of same-sex marriage. when you've got young people taking a libertarian stand on a cultural issue and old people taking a strong stand against it, the question becomes will the young people have the same attitude as they grow up and get older? california had an initiative on marijuana smoking in 1972. as i recall, it was defeated 66-34, but young voters were in favor of it. those voters kind of changed their minds as the years went on. you did not have think increase in the support for legalization of marijuana for for several decades until really the marijuana advocates came up with the idea of medical marijuana. and we are now, i think, de facto legalizing marijuana in some cases. but those people change their mind as, you know, they grew up. they had children, and they decided it wasn't a great idea. i think on this issue it's one where people are going to continue to take the stand that they're taking, that support for same-sex marriage will persist in this millennial generation, and they will inevitably be a larger part of the election, of electoral politics in years hence and the current over-65 generation will be a smaller part of electoral politics. so i think, i think support will continue. you may want to take into account my bad record at predicting trends in public opinion on gay rights issues when you're assessing this. [laughter] i would not put myself forward as a, as an expert. let me just conclude here with a couple of statements about this issue generally. i think david pointed rightly to the fact that, you know, the pref reps of divorce can -- prevalence of divorce among many be opponents of same-sex marriage or the constituencies in whose behalf they tend to, they tend to speak, they believe that they speak, i think that there is some truth to that. in my article last august in the washington examiner, my column on this issue, i made the point that i think that, you know, i am concerned about threats to the family. i share the views of people like the family research council and so forth about things. i think that lack of two parents is a grave handicap to children, that is a statistically-valid factor. but i'm also aware that the number of gays in america is relatively small. the best evidence we have, i think, is the presidential election poll every four years, because you fill it out yourself. you don't have to talk to an interviewer, press a button on your phone, and you deposit the paper in a box, and it's a very anonymous questionnaire. so if you're fearful of stigma, you have no motive to hide your actual status or belief. 3% has been the number in each of the last three elections. interestingly, it is just about the only demographic group in which john mccain got a higher percentage of the vote than george w. bush in 2004. i mean, it went up from something like 23% to 25%, but that was against the national trend. and it's also evidence that gay voters are not as monolithically one-party voters as black americans tend to be. but the -- my argument that i made was, look, you know, i'm concerned about damage to the family, but it seems to me that there's less damage from a few people who want to get married than there is from the much larger number of people who get divorced or who have children out getting married in the first place. i think that's a pretty strong argument, and i think david has made an argument similar if not identical to that in his book. let me just conclude with by distinguishing my attitude, if i may, from -- toward religious right leaders and outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage from david's attitude. i do not see them. he used the term "hateful" to characterize some people at least at this point. i think, certainly, you could go out there and find people who hate gay people, who want to have, you know, iranian capital punishment for homosexuals or people engaged in home sexual sex. homosexual sex. i think, though, that the large majority of people on the same side of the marriage issue are taking the positions they to because they think it will be good for people generally. i think that people who share hi view that same-sex marriage should be legal, and we should change the status of marriage from what it has been for many years, think that it would be good for people generally, and i think there's a strong argument on that behalf. but i think people who are against it also believe that their position is good for people generally, and they can say to us, look, you know, the burden of proof is kind of on those who want to change a very long and enduring institution. i think that the case that david is making has at least persuaded me, but i do want to say that i respect the good faith of very many, the large majority of americans who take an opposite view. thank you. [applause] >> thanks. now it's time for questions, and i'm going to exercise the power of the chair, if not the right of the chair, to ask david the first question which is, carries on from his presentation. i really wanted to hear the chapter about the candidates, but the republican party doesn't have a scorecard. they don't have a candidates now, they have a candidate. so governor romney, what's your story on him? and also, just sort of get us moving toward the future here, do you have any views about the potential vice presidential candidate, santorum and gingrich are generally thought not to be real candidates for the haven't haven't -- vice presidency. are there other people that you've looked into? >> well, i was afraid you were going to ask me about governor romney. [laughter] >> sorry. >> in the, in that chapter eight, the scorecard, i go back and review their public statements, votes, etc. , and governor romney's case, of course, it goes back to all those famous 1993 or so pro-gay statements and pledges when he was running against ted kennedy. of course, all his religious right opponents also went back to those statements and were convinced that he was still a closet pro-gay candidate. he's, in my view, he's a tough nut to crack. when he started running for president even before he left the office of governor, of course, he opposed same-sex marriage when the, when it blossomed in massachusetts with that supreme court decision. he supported banning it, i mean, he ultimately accepted it, i think, because he had no choice really. although others were advocating, you know, to go to the ramparts. after he left office, he made a few comments about, um, supporting employment nondiscrimination, although not at the federal level, but at the state level. he often tailors his remarks to the audience in which he, to which he is speaking. so you saw him during last year when in the front of the family leader or at a values, voters values summit right here in d.c. he would say all the right things. and yet when he would go to new hampshire, for example, he openly talked about supporting domestic partnerships or a certain kind of package of rights for gay couples. and i'm sure he did his best to keep, you know, that as below the radar as possible, because he was constantly being attacked by rick santorum and others for any hint of pro-tolerance. he gets a -- he got a d in my report card. actually, he may have gotten a d+because of that partnership statement he made in new hampshire. >> what was the timeline on the republican legislature's rejection of attempts to repeal same-sec marriage? >> that was earlier this year, possibly in about march or so. >> so it was after the new hampshire primary. >> yes, right. >> that was my recollection, but i wanted to -- >> right. so -- >> that was a simmering issue there because the democratic legislature -- >> it was, in fact -- >> it was one of the few states that has a legislature -- >> and a number of them -- right. a thurm of them were asked about it, and i believe romney was asked about it and gave his usual talking point about traditional marriage, and i believe supporting a federal marriage amendment, which he does. so, you know, i don't think his views are going to get much better on this. ironically, though, i argued this an op-ed that i'm working on that obama's coming out explicitly for same-sex marriage actually is a plus for him. it gives him some opportunities that i doubt he'll take advantage of, but i think they're there. there was always this question of the intensity of support by right-wing or religious right voters. and most of them finally warmed up to him simply because he's the candidate or will be. but when obama came out and said he explicitly supported same-sex marriage, that really sent them over the edge. they were already angry about the doma decisions on his part. so i think most of those voters now are anybody but obama voters, and i think that affords romney the ability to come out and try to reach out to those moderate and independent and women voters who would like to see him say, tradition, a pledge to support employment nonscrip nation for federal employees -- nondiscrimination for federal employees, something that bush and binton and obama -- clinton and obama all did. allow gay couples the same tax privileges on health insurance benefits. you know, he's evolved on every other issue, i would love to see him evolve on the federal marriage amendment and finally figure out that being for federalism and the tenth amendment are actually good republican positions. that said, i don't think he's going to do any of that. so i'm just going to take a wait-and-see attitude on his part. >> so what was the vice president? >> oh, yeah. well, i love christie. i would vote for him in a heartbeat. >> that's not an endorsement by the cato institute, by the way. [laughter] >> the governor's actually going to be the keynote speaker, it was announced today at the republican convention, so that's a good thing. >> okay. >> i don't really have any preferences. and, unfortunately, even if they have more socially-tolerant views on these issues, they'll disavow them once they become the candidate, so -- >> well, let's see what our audience, the questions they have. as we go into this, please, wait until you're called upon by me, wait for the microphone. this is the crucial thing because, remember, everyone in the room has to hear you, and we'ral going out over the internet or over television, and, please, announce your name and, if you like, your affiliation. and i would also say, please, make sure that your question is in the form of a question. thank you. and if you want to direct it to one or the other of our panelists. let's start with the gentleman down here in the middle. we'll try to get to everyone. >> hi. my name is steve hankin, i have no affiliation. i have a question of whether the position of trying to promote gay rights, so to speak, is being done on this left/right continuum too much which, to me, means i either like gays or i dislike gays. and to me the better argument is the pure libertarian argument which is, essentially, live and let live which means that i don't have to like gays i don't have to -- i don't want to, if i don't want to associate with gays, that's not my personal belief, but if that's somebody's personal belief, they could still take the libertarian attitude, well, i'm going to let them live the way they want to live because i want to live the way i want to live. and, therefore, whether i want to associate with them, whether i want them to teach my children, i still would afford them the same rights. which is, essentially, the pure libertarian. and my question really is, aren't, aren't you guys too much looking at this from sort of a left/right continuum as opposed to what i would say is a libertarian continuum which doesn't -- >> okay. thank you. thank you. david? .. for equal rights. to me it does not imply a half to personally like people. >> i would just add to that, however, that i think the large part of the vast change in public opinion has become -- has happened because people have come out as gay and not gay people know lot more gay people as gay than they did 20 years ago. they don't have horns or necessarily the effect the most of richest person of local tv station can find in that -- pride parade. they're your friend, relative, bibber who is a carry. the idea -- i think that really fortifies politically the case against discrimination even though by the government in various ways, ships, and forms, even though from an amtrak what did you the abstract but if he should be just a strong. >> the latest polls have shown about 60 percent of americans say they know a gay person. >> that would have been 20% 20 years a. >> and in the 56 or 60's no one would have admitted to that. there has been a huge cultural shift and change which has expanded the support for gay rights. >> of course in the fifties they did know some people who were gay. they just didn't know that their work for. >> right. to your question, yes. i think that ultimately that is what freedom means. a top of the like, associate with him, police would you believe. if you live in a free society and to grant you all the same rights. >> the difficulty i find among conversing with his conservatives is that what the agreement recognizes same-sex marriage and certain other gay writes the government then has to enforce the recognition to the general populace. so you see cases like the christian photographer in new mexico who was forced to -- >> photograph of wedding. i think the 13th amendment takes care of that case. >> also, the case in new jersey were you have venturesome was divided. tax-exempt status because they refuse to rent out a gazebo to the same sex couple or more recent case in new york, currently undergoing litigation because they don't recognize certain health benefits. >> and i totally understand those positions and agree with the conservatives on them, but when they talk about issues like that it is really a bait and switch. why would you talk about the photographer when you're talking about same-sex marriage in fact, most of these people believe and nondiscrimination laws. perfectly fine with them to buy applied to a race, creed, religion, or any other category. it's only when you talk about sexual orientation that they have this new-found concern for freedom of association. i think there are granted the kids on that issue. they can least be consistent about it and say, well, i don't believe public accommodation law or correct. >> let me disagree slim if. our civil rights and legislation, public accommodations, fair housing laws have exceptions for cases personally close to you. if you have an apartment unit in your house and not necessarily covered by them when you out. you have the right to discriminate. sunday considered a key for whatever reason concluding those otherwise prohibited. i think that, in these cases, you know, should clergyman be required to officiate at marriages, but disagree. >> unanimous in law, the january case. the mexico thing is an obvious of rage. photograph wedding when he doesn't want to. >> absolutely. >> were and a half cent sex marriage to have bent over backwards. the absence of a shed. if a church doesn't even want to allow a gay person to be a member or to work to restore some of this line, but don't talk about, i'm going to prevent legal equality for gays and lesbians because sometime in the future someone might pass a law that says this lady has to photograph to weddings. those are separate issues. >> a brief remark. the woman and purple. >> i found a discussion. typically what they argue naturally is that marriage between a man that a woman and one of the issues with this has become such an emotional argument. a lot people, it just becomes too personal. do you take the baby will be better to argue from a logical standpoint of what the government takes the stand and takes a stance on marriage and grants certain benefits to unmarried couples that it no longer holds the religious connotation? just through societal development marriage is now under -- no longer understood as it traditionally religious institution. if your kid that white people be more receptive. >> the important thing, talk about this and the book and many other advocates of legal equality. you have to make the distinction between that religious and ceremonial part the talk about and the legal or civil or. it being religious and having a wedding in a church is an insufficient the necessary to have a legal marriage. only the civil portion of marriage has the legal implications which is getting the marriage license which you can then complete or consomme by going to a justice of the piece. it doesn't say anything in our religion completion gone, having children. and so i think that is a fundamental mistake that a lot of opponents of same-sex marriage and gay-rights in particular make. they think of their own marriage this holy union. it think of their religious values and what they were taught i get all that, but the arab and crossing the line because of their personal views, crossing the line from the religious aspect of marriage over to the civil. well, because i don't -- my religion says that your not a got a hearing person and you don't get access to the same legal contracts and rights that i do. that is a common mistake and has certainly been pointed out enough. unfortunately their religious values from a private religious values usually trump their alleged belief and limited government. >> when you're talking about marriage to bisexuality, you're talking about things that are very personally important to people, and they're going to have strong feelings about these things. they bet their lives on doing things a certain way or there are -- these into local groups are regretful that many of the people, many people who have some of the leaves are behaving in ways that they consider will. you're going to have strong feelings. it's one of the reasons why i urge, you know, trying to conduct this debate in a way that is respectful of others to take a different you. you know, and the fact think they have -- their positive the motivated in no one disagrees with them. we have less of an intersection of the state into the church in some countries. about 20 years ago was in france . a family can overcome and we visited the church in a large city in normandy. it was a saturday. there was a wedding ceremony. very well-dressed booze, extended family. the priest was officiating of the cathedral. after the wedding vows and dominae of fourth and stand down to a priest. here comes the authority of the state, a clerk comes in right there in the church my parents were spawned it is. appalled at the idea that treatment persons coming into a church. that was in view of a violation of our principle of free exercise of religion without state supervision. different countries have different and the tunes question on the. >> gentleman. >> my name is steven shore. if nixon could go to beijing, why can't romney go to dupont circle? >> mid he can. >> a ticket that is a rhetorical question. >> the president doesn't, you know, take stands on some sex marriage. you mentioned the family marriage amendment which was obviously a dead duck and a never got to pass congress. i object to a presidential candidates volunteering positions on constitutional amendments were being questioned by them because the president doesn't actually have been able the constitution except as a citizen of the state who can vote for members of congress and members of the legislature. is in the same position as the rest of us. i don't vote for members of congress or state legislature. it's not a presidential rule under the constitution to pass constitutional amendments. ask your member of congress or your state legislator. >> that's why i think you could just as easily stay out of that issue. it's disingenuous to say, in part to work for federal management because he has no legal will. >> the balanced budget amendment . >> they talk about everything, including some things that violate the laws of physics and other economic loss. we can't really expect restraint. >> thank you. my question, how do you feel and more importantly how you think the republican party feels about the matter of a woman's right to choose. i recognize the have a question of another line of, what you don't have in the game marriage issue. what i'm talking about, during a time where unless it is a religious matter there's not a separate life. what is your view on that and have you compare interview on gainer? >> i hesitate, since it is such in many ways a different topic, i hesitate to give my view on it . even libertarians are split on that issue. it is in that way kind of a very unique political issue because even stronger libertarians, because of that element of life, it kind of complicates the whole issue. i am pro-choice. so, of course, opponents of my book and message will say, he's not a real conservative. that's my view one. i think my view is consistent with the traditional libertarian view about personal rights and control over your body, but i fully respect the position and use of people who are pro-live. i do agree with the conservatives and the government shouldn't funded or subsidize it in any way, and so my protesters liberal friends call like that about five years. i think there are consistent. >> one of the interesting things about public opinion to the people currently under 30, by large majority there are more in favor of restricting abortions then at least slightly than their elders, and i think there are a number of reasons for that the sonograms, technology, it becomes harder to argue that they fetus is not in some sense of human life. i think the other factor that everybody board in america 30 years or younger could have had his or her life and it by legal and an expense of abortion. it seems to me if they reflect on that they might not think so well of abortion. just speculation. >> this will win here. >> thank you and in turn here at the cato institute. i was curious. to general arguments. one is the the federal definition of marriage should be amended to include more people and whether then constantly negotiating the inclusion and exclusion criteria for marriage we should just abolish these federal monopolies on the institution and just live and let live and that people do with the want. i guess i'm curious as to why we are focusing so much on the former for a more credible and. >> because we have something called the defense of marriage act. if the or repeal the federal grand met would not be involved in the issue. the opponents of legal equality want to get the feds involved even more. michael is right. i think it has little chance, but it is -- >> zero. >> it is a really important position on the part of people like the american family association, family research council and that the usual suspects, so this beat. tulsa that disrespectfully. and another reason why i think it's kind of gratuitous her various republican candidates, but especially governor romney to say he supports it and will work for. if you want to dissing dates of the program from this issue repeal the law, and i think that's a good start. >> that you have a situation which would have this interesting characteristic which is that same-sex couples who have marriages recognized and state law, where the marriage was done or where they live, you know, they qualify for things like the marital deduction, the fact that your incomes of marriage. people from other states would. it would be an incentive for the states to change the laws and the opponents would say it's unfair. that's how we got the marital deduction in the first place because community property states which inherited spanish and come along had married couples and the post-world war two time friend able to combine their one income of the husband and get a lower marginal tax rate that people in other states at which point congress stepped in and created the same legal situation in each state. >> to that point again, there are some who believe in the federal marriage amendment, but it is a very different kind. basically saying the marriage is a fundamental right and it should be by constitutional amendment granted your extended to all couples of all states. >> we may get a supreme court decision saying as much. >> we may. certainly that, to me, that amendment process would be even more impossible and difficult than anti marriage federal management that has lost several rounds in trying to get them started. >> one more question. >> the to the. >> american enterprise institute , and i wanted to ask you, there is in large and increasing support. most of the successes have come to the court, and a legislature or direct vote opposition to the proposition a. do you think this is the most effective way, or should there be a greater focus on changing the order be if a? >> certainly, apart from the moral question the latter from longevity would be preferable. with the courts overturned jim crow i don't think it was proper to make an argument to mobile, but southerners should have run on a question. i think that's a good analogy. there are certain inalienable rights, and the courts have a proper role in affirming of rights. we all know courts can go overboard and judges can make all kinds of decisions based on their personal preferences instead of the constitution or its general resumption of the ready. it extends. when the legislature does it or court does it on the proper grounds i think that's just as valid as if the people vote on a >> i have the same conclusion, and dubious about the court case . you know, we will see if the ninth circuit which basically ruled their is a right to some six marriage is affirmed by the supreme court, which it may well be, or reversed as it often is. i would stand with jonathan on -- it is preferable to do this by legislature. that means it won't happen everywhere. in states like alabama and mississippi were 78 percent of people are black or white given to local protestants, they're not going to pass same-sex marriage and the legislature any time soon. on the other hand we have seen legislatures in new hampshire, connecticut, new york pass same sex marriage. we saw that it survived the political process and it is endorsed by voters in massachusetts after being imposed by court. we have seen it come, and the jersey where quebeckers it -- governor christie once in front of i think as the blood meals become a larger part of the electorate with regard to see more acceptance. 52-48 against. i think if it cannot this year it would vote in favor. so far it is only been the opponents of want to bring it to referendum. the chances of the voters about that is going to be a step-by-step process. let me conclude by noting i am on resident fellow at american enterprise institute, and from the arrival and friendly think tank and am always happy to be here. >> i would like to thank both david and michael for appearing. fundamental freedom. available from your favorite bookstore and also available for here in our audience outside, and assured it will be happy to sign in the copy you buy one or part to you about the book. eleven up to ready to do so and the author does were going to go upstairs and have watched as part of our schedule for. it's a little bit different if you're coming here for the first time or went to the old. a should say also, restrooms are on the second floor. look for the yellow wall of right. join me in taking our panel. [applause] >> every weekend book tv offers 48 hours of programming focused on nonfiction authors and books. >> everyone in american homes.o again, the suspicion was raised when iab realized the back of t, car was a little lower to the ground and the front. given the rules of engagement you can't just shoot someonegi because they looked suspicious. what you should come? well, i get scared. did you got scared? s sorry you killed a man. >> well, yes. i have a gun.well, >> you can't do that. given the rules of engagementha you cannot shoot someone unless an you know you have a weapon. so given the rules of engagemene i could just shoot someone that looks suspicious. and the best thing to do was to yell at him to get out of hisspc car. i was looking over my left shoulder facing him. i was in the league striker vehicle, middle of to my namei take all around me.hie, i was inside standing up. i still have my import, looking cool. m doing everything that of afr supposed to.ev but that tent. it committed out of your vehicle and he hurt me because it looked over his shoulder straight at mi he lookedd his hands off the stern well and put them back shl down.s nothing happened. okay. well, but he understood on be saying, don't know where ramp. i lost.ybhe's i did know.know w so i yelled at him again. he raised his hands again and shook his head no and let his foot off the brake.aise i then had to make a decision. s i shot two rounds in front of his vehicle. my world of black. out will go a week or so later and walter reed medical center. my life forever changed. a the will of black and only physically to lobbying by the rest of my life. shrapnel had entered, cut myinde left eye in half, to the frontal lobe of the left side of my brain and metal went into the right eye, going through my korea back to my retina and taking out my and optic nerve m i saw nothing but lightness andg was told by the ophthalmologist that i would never be able toop see again.was so my life went physically blaca that day, but it also would spiritually black. i no longer believe in god.ent i erything i had done now no longer meant anything to me. remember one of my best friends coming into the room before onef of my surgery's and said all one and you say a prayer. i said no. i don't know how to pray, i don't know got.said i think the room went deadnd silent. if there were card riches of the room you would have heard the. e my wife went back to her room w realizing i had been married to an awesome man and a still and. i would be fined being married to a blind guy, but been marrien to someone did not believe in what he believed to before,omeo that's something different.t he she began to pray, friends began to prey on around the world. for me it was a choice i had to make to my personal choice. i have support. and a doctors' plot our room was creepy because plans would be coming outas. out but it was support.apntly again, it still can back to me.c i was the one that had to make s the choice. my company commander called me every other day.at we were awesome friends. my brigade commander, the ca commanding general with call me every week to see how are stealing, something that does not normally happen in thel organization.s the top leaders call you to seea how you're doing.an the support that i have was alou mason.ou're doing? the support that i had was amazing, was awesome. and people like toby keith, country singer, gary sinise, the actor, generals, three-star, four-star would come in and try to see me and i'd say, no, no thank you. and one day my wife said, scotty, andrew wants to see you. she didn't say who it was, but something hit me. it was andrew harris, the boy who i had taught sunday school with three years earlier had driven down from west point, new york, with his dad to come and see me. and i don't know if i knew that day or in the days to come that the impact that i had made on

Related Keywords

Dupont Circle , District Of Columbia , United States , New York , Alabama , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Iran , Beijing , China , California , New Mexico , Washington , Mississippi , Connecticut , United Kingdom , Mexico , West Point , New Jersey , Massachusetts , Jersey , France , Spain , Normandy , France General , Utah , Britain , Americans , America , Iranian , Spanish , Chinese , American , David Kirby , Toby Keith , Jon Huntsman , Obama Clinton , Michael Barone , Ronald Reagan , Ron Paul , Barry Goldwater , Gary Johnson , Rick Perry , Thomas Jefferson , Michele Bachmann , Jesus Christ , George W Bush , Doe Ma , Rick Santorum , Steve Hankin , Robert Kennedy , James Madison , Gore Vidal , Newt Gingrich , Gary Sinise , John Mccain , Andrew Harris , Timothy Dwight , Alou Mason , Ted Kennedy ,