Bush Proposes Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage; Pentagon Charges Guantanamo Prisoners
Aired February 24, 2004 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone.A colleague came into my office today and asked if I thought today was big. I knew exactly what he meant. Yes, I think today is big. Any time you talk about amending the Constitution of the United States you are talking big.Tonight we'll spend plenty of time on the question of gay marriage. We'll have a series of reports. We have a couple of guests with very different points of view. That's important to do and we'll do it but as all this goes along, this process which thankfully takes a while, we need to look long and hard at the larger question. Is this the sort of issue that rises to the level of a constitutional amendment? Is it up there with slavery or a woman's right to vote? Does it stand there next to free speech or the protection from unwarranted search and seizure by the government? Or, is it perhaps a smaller issue than that, not an unimportant issue, but smaller than the great issues we reserve or should reserve for the Constitution? Whichever, it is the bulk of the program tonight and it starts the whip. Our Senior White House Correspondent John King, John a headline from you.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the president today insisted that gay marriage is an issue that meets that test, that high test of changing the Constitution. He says the most fundamental institution of civilization is at risk. His critics say perhaps the president is worried his conservative support is at risk -- Aaron.
BROWN: John, thank you. We'll get to you at the top tonight.On the Democratic side of what almost certainly now will be an election issue in the fall, CNN's Candy Crowley in Houston, Texas tonight, Candy a headline.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the truth is Democrats would rather not talk about gay marriage but there are some things beyond their control, so tonight John Edwards and John Kerry talked.
BROWN: Candy, thank you.Now to the question of how this is playing around the country and in San Francisco, which the last time I checked is part of the country. CNN's David Mattingly is there, David a headline from you.
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, it is an issue that is fiercely political and deeply personal. That's why we hear strong words on both sides of gay marriage tonight from San Francisco Bay all the way to Boston Harbor -- Aaron.
BROWN: David, thank you.And finally to the Pentagon, an entirely different matter, a decision to put a pair of prisoners from Guantanamo on trial, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, Jamie a headline.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, Pentagon officials admit these two are not the biggest fish they're holding. One of them made a recruiting videotape for al Qaeda. The other drove Osama bin Laden around. But they are the first to face charges of war crimes and, Aaron, here's the kicker. Even if they're found not guilty the U.S. could still hold them in prison indefinitely.
BROWN: Jamie, thank you. We'll get back to you and the rest shortly.Also coming up tonight on the program the most talked about movie in a long time maybe ever, "The Passion of Christ," what's fact, what isn't, an expert's opinion tonight.And we'll end up the evening with a start on tomorrow morning, your papers for Wednesday, all that and more in a busy hour ahead.We begin tonight at the end of a pretty big day. We can say this with a fair degree of confidence because no matter where you stand on the question of gays and marriage and state's rights and all the rest, it is a very big day when the president of the United States enters the fray. It is bigger still when the president does so with an eye towards changing the fundamental law of the land. A number of reports tonight, beginning with CNN's John King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING (voice-over): It is scenes like this in San Francisco that the president says left him no choice but to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
KING: The White House says Mr. Bush favors an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman but lets individual states allow civil unions that give legal recognition and partnership benefits to gay couples.
BUSH: Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.
KING: Such an amendment is a major priority for religious conservatives critical to Mr. Bush this election year and Democrats were quick to accuse the president of pandering.
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: It's about politics, an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country solely for partisan advantage.KING: Gay rights advocates, including the Log Cabin Republicans, say the president can no longer claim to be a compassionate conservative.
PATRICK GUERRIERO, LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS: The president has jeopardized the over one million gay and lesbian votes he received in 2000. This is really a declaration of war on gay and lesbian families.
KING: Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage but not all of those opponents think the issue warrants changing the Constitution.
BILL MCINTURFF, GOP POLLSTER: It's about 50/50 as a proposition, so in other words this is not a slam dunk.KING: Amending the Constitution is no easy task. A proposed change first must pass both the House and the Senate with two-thirds support and then be ratified by 38 states.In the last campaign, Mr. Bush said gay marriage was a state issue but now aides say he was swayed by court rulings in Massachusetts, the thousands of gay weddings allowed in San Francisco in defiance of state law and where local governments in New Mexico and elsewhere might soon issue gay marriage licenses as well.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Now the president called on Congress to act promptly but even many social conservative allies on this issue doubt there are the votes in Congress to pass the proposed amendment this year, no doubt at all. Aaron, know that the president has now put this very emotional divisive issue front and center in the presidential campaign.
BROWN: And how will it -- I agree with you though I'm not entirely sure how it plays out in the campaign. Are they going to make ads about it? Is he going to make speeches on it or is it just there?KING: Unclear on the ad question. They do say this will be added quite soon to the president's routine stump speech and the Bush campaign is also saying this is another issue in their view on which Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the man they believe will be their opponent, has waffled, has had a number of different positions or has been evading tough questions on the issue. They insist they're doing this not to divide the country, yet they also say privately more than publicly that they believe this is an issue that benefits the president.
BROWN: John, thank you, our Senior White House Correspondent John King. John touched a bit on the politics of this, at least as it is seen in the White House. Now the challenge facing the Democrats who find themselves facing a wedge issue, if you will, sharp end first.Here's CNN's Candy Crowley.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY (voice-over): Gay marriage is a loser issue for Democrats. Supporting it turns off culturally conservative voters in southern and must win swing states. Opposing it ticks off the culturally liberal base.Both John Kerry and John Edwards are against gay marriage and against a constitutional amendment to ban it, which makes the whole issue mighty uncomfortable.Why are you opposed to gay marriage?
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I just don't support gay marriage myself personally.
CROWLEY: Why?
EDWARDS: Because I don't think it's the right thing to do.
CROWLEY: You don't think it's the right thing to do. Don't you think that...
EDWARDS: Thank you all very much.
CROWLEY: They really, really would rather not talk about this.
EDWARDS: I don't know.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Because I believe as a matter of belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's my belief.
CROWLEY: This is a particularly sticky wicket for Kerry, one of only 14 Senators who voted in 1996 against the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Bottom line from both the Senator candidates, leave gay marriage to the states and change the subject.
EDWARDS: Well, what this indicates is the president is not in touch with what's going on with people's lives. I mean if he really wants to help married couples, what he should be doing is helping them with all their economic problems.
CROWLEY: In Georgia for a second day, Edwards put his best foot forward walking presidentially down the grand staircase of the State House with allied lawmakers. In a twist only politics can provide, Edwards opened his standard stump speech attacking the president for only picking on John Kerry.
EDWARDS: And, by the way, today I've got a message for somebody in Washington and that message is this. Not so fact George Bush, you don't get to decide who our nominee is.
CROWLEY: Kerry, working his way through Ohio on a jobs tour didn't like the president's Monday night speech either.
KERRY: Last night was almost a fantasy speech about a world that doesn't exist for most Americans. I believe we deserve a president who is going to fight to make the playing field fair for the workers of this country.
CROWLEY: But, hey, at least he got picked on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: The end of the day the Senators John had this tally, gay marriage two nays, a constitutional amendment against gay marriage two nays, George Bush's speech two nays -- Aaron.
BROWN: Well that part is simple enough. I gather from all of this you will not hear unless forced, maybe at gunpoint, the Democrats talking about this at all.
CROWLEY: You know it's not a real workable issue. Now there are, you know, pockets of the country where it is. When they're in front of liberal groups at fund-raisers, when you see some of the party's core out there don't doubt this is also an issue that activates, and I think we heard this in John's speech -- I'm sorry in John's piece, that in fact this does activate those who are pro-gay marriage. So, the calculation here is by the White House is that there are more who side with the president than who side with the Democrats and, at the moment, that is also the Democrats' calculation, not something they want to bring up in most places in the country.
BROWN: Candy, thank you very much, Candy Crowley tonight.If there is any doubt how fierce this debate might become, consider where it is already going. Politicians like mobsters and radio shock jocks generally abide by an unwritten law. Family members, especially kids, are off limits. But in a debate that's all about family, what defines one, who gets to create one, the guidelines can become very confused.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN ARAVOSIS, CREATOR, WWW.DEARMARY.COM: Dear Mary: This Friday morning we were married in San Francisco after driving all night from Los Angeles. The lines were long but I wish you could have been there to see the tremendous outpouring of joy and happiness and love...
BROWN (voice-over): "Newsweek" has called it an audacious surprise attack.
ARAVOSIS: Dear Mary: I know you've heard it many times before but how could you let this happen?
BROWN: Political opponents say it is tacky and disrespectful.
ARAVOSIS: Do something, Mary. You have an obligation to yourself and to every gay and lesbian person in this country. Speak out for what's right.
BROWN: It takes the purely political and makes it intensely personal.
ARAVOSIS: You're scared to oppose your father's opinion. Wow, you should be proud of who you are.
BROWN: The Web site is dearmary.com and the Mary that these more than 9,000 postcards are addressed to is the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.
ARAVOSIS: You know what, Dick Cheney talks about my family. I can talk about his family. Let's talk about gays. Let's talk about their relationships. Let's talk about your kids whether they're gay or not and whether that's okay.
BROWN: In the year 2000, Mary Cheney was a visible member of her father's campaign even though according to "The Washington Post" she had a long term female partner and wore what appeared to be a wedding band. Indeed, her father defended the right to free choice.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.
BROWN: That was four years ago. Last month, the vice president appeared to retreat from his earlier stance saying he would support whatever the president's position was on gay marriage.Mary Cheney is now a senior member of her father's political team and has made no public comment and a campaign spokesman refused CNN's request for an interview.
ARAVOSIS: She's running her father's political campaign now for reelection. We think it's highly relevant to ask his campaign director what they feel about gay relationships when last we heard she's in one.
BROWN: And so with a touch of humor the battle is joined.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: And it is just beginning.Still ahead on the program tonight we'll come back to the issue of gay marriage, a discussion in our second half hour, a look at the reaction from around the country as well.And we'll talk with Andrew Sullivan and Dr. James Dobson who see this all quite differently.Up next the first charges have now been filed against prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. We'll have the latest on that.And in Segment 7 tonight, Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of Christ," what does it tell us about how Jesus died? How accurate is it, that and more as NEWSNIGHT continues from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A first today in the Bush administration's war on terror, the country's war on terror as well. The Pentagon has brought formal charges against two of the prisoners being held at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Both men are believed to be members of al Qaeda and both will be tried before a military commission.Here's our Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (voice-over): The first al Qaeda detainees to face charges are described in Pentagon indictments as bodyguards and drivers for Osama bin Laden and are accused of helping bin Laden plan and carry out terrorist attacks. The formal charge is conspiracy to commit war crimes. In a Pentagon statement, a Yemeni suspect, Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul is described as "a key al Qaeda propagandist who produced videos glorifying the murder of Americans."He's said to have made this recruiting video about the October, 2000 attack on the USS Cole to motivate other al Qaeda members to continue attacks against the United States.And the documents alleged he was also ordered by bin Laden to arrange a satellite downlink to watch the September 11 attacks but failed because of the mountainous terrain.A Sudanese man, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi is identified as "a key al Qaeda accountant, bin Laden bodyguard and weapons smuggler." He is said to have shepherded bin Laden around Afghanistan and helped him flee from Kandahar as U.S. forces were closing in, in late 2001.The accused have not yet met with their Pentagon-appointed attorneys who are echoing the concerns of human rights groups that the military commissions fall short of American standards of justice.
LT. CMR. PHILIP SUNDEL, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We have very, very grave concerns about whether our client can get a fair trial in this process. The process is not designed with the checks and balances that we expect to see in a criminal justice process.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: These two men are the first charged but they're not the most important al Qaeda suspects held by the U.S. in Guantanamo. In fact, neither one will face the death penalty.It's also the case though that even a not guilty verdict will not guarantee they'll be freed. The Pentagon has made it clear they plan to hold onto anyone that they think poses a future risk despite what the military commissions decide -- Aaron.
BROWN: Ultimately, the courts are getting involved in this. The Supreme Court will get involved in this. Do you have any idea who the witnesses are to this, how this is going to unfold?
MCINTYRE: Well, it's not clear that there will be witnesses. Looking at the charges they filed in this case, for instance, one guy is charged with making a videotape, the other one with driving bin Laden around and shepherding him around the country.The defense attorneys say they have yet to see any of the evidence against their clients. In fact, they've yet to talk to them. They're just trying to get an interpreter.So, as they announced these charges today, these defense attorneys are just trying to figure out how solid the case is. They say they're not happy with the process but they're just hoping that the military judges will "do the right thing."
BROWN: And a process question, are they -- do they have a Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination?
MCINTYRE: Well, they do to an extent but there are some differences between these military commissions and the U.S. justice system. For instance, in certain circumstances, the government in these cases can actually eavesdrop on conversations between the defendants and their attorneys and that's something obviously that would be strictly prohibited in the U.S. regular criminal system.
BROWN: It would be. Jamie, thank you very much, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon tonight.The Money Line Roundup starts tonight with Martha Stewart and the answer to the burning question ever since her trial began. Will she testify? Late today her lawyer said no. He expects to call just a single witness tomorrow on her behalf and then rest his case."Fortune" magazine is out with a list of the most admired companies and, for the second year running, Wal-Mart is number one. Berkshire Hathaway, that's Warren Buffett's company, came in second and Southwest Airlines came in third. Companies are me in second and Southwest Airlines came in third. for the second year running, Wal- Mart is number one, ranked by "Fortune" based on investment value, along with quality of service, products and their management.Consumer confidence took a dip for the month, the confidence (unintelligible) index falling to the lowest level since October this after more hopeful numbers in January.Wall Street in the meantime had a lackluster day, which is to say it was down all of it. Market watcher say not so much profit taking as a shortage of buyers keeping prices low today.Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight, "The Passion" how accurate is it.And up next, America's top two intelligence figures defend their agencies on Capitol Hill, we take a break first.This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A quick roundup of some of the stories that made news around the country today starting with two more audio tapes claiming to be from al Qaeda. The CIA says it believes the voice on both tapes is probably Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al Qaeda second in command. The taped messages, which aired on two Arab satellite news networks, warned of more attacks like those on 9/11 and criticized France's push to ban Islamic head scarves in schools.On to the al Qaeda manhunt, today U.S. military officials say the man believed to have been a top aide to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed last week in a U.S. raid in Iraq. Zarqawi was suspected of writing a letter to al Qaeda seeking help with the insurgency targeted in the U.S.-led coalition and Iraqis who cooperate with the United States, the U.S. government offering a $10 million bounty for information leading to Zarqawi's arrest.In Morocco, the northern part of the country, aftershocks continue tonight following a 6.5 earthquake that struck the region before dawn. Here are the latest numbers 564 people believed to have died, another 300 hurt in the quake, most of the victims women and children. The men in the region mainly work overseas.In Washington, the Senate Intelligence Committee held its annual hearing on worldwide terror threats today. It coincided with a "New York Times" report today that German intelligence officials gave the CIA the first name of one of the 9/11 terrorists back in March of 1999, asked the CIA to check him out.When asked about the report during his testimony today, the CIA Director George Tenet defended his agency, said he would discuss the issue in more detail in a closed session with the committee, which brings us to the public portion.Here's CNN's David Ensor.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On a day when another threatening audio tape from al Qaeda was made public, a stark assessment from the nation's intelligence chiefs of the continuing terrorist threat.
GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: Even catastrophic attacks on the scale of 9/11 remain within al Qaeda's reach. Make no mistake these plots are hatched abroad but they target U.S. soil and those of our allies.
ENSOR: Tenet said Osama bin Laden's group is still trying to attack with poison, chemical, biological, nuclear or a dirty bomb and said even if bin Laden himself is killed or captured the danger will remain for the foreseeable future. FBI Director Robert Mueller said the terrorists' potential targets are varied.
ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: Our transportation systems across the country, particularly subways, bridges in major cities, as well as the airlines, have been a continual focus of al Qaeda targeting.
ENSOR: Several Senators had pointed questions about why U.S. intelligence said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war when none have been found.
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: How can you build a policy of preemption on intelligence if we were so wrong in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq?
TENET: We're not perfect but we're pretty damn good at what we do and we care as much as you do about Iraq and whether we were right or wrong and we're going to work through it in a way where we tell the truth as to whether we were right or wrong.ENSOR (on camera): Tenet said the CIA-led team in Iraq looking for weapons is still getting new leads to follow up. He may get a more intense grilling on the WMD shortfall Thursday at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.David Ensor, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, we'll check morning papers, as always.Up next, we go back to the major story of the day, the president's proposal for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, how that is likely to play in an election year, take a break first.Around the world this is NEWSNIGHT
.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Back now to where we began the program and the night, and where we expect to return often in the months ahead. It seems fair to call them fighting words, President Bush saying he'll back a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage. The news wasn't unexpected. The president had warned he might do so. But expected or not, it eclipsed a lot of other news today. Everyone seems to have a reaction. On the reaction, here's CNN's David Mattingly.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For better or for worse.
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When, Ella Johnson and Erma Daniels (ph) decided to marry after years together, they wanted their I do's to be as much a political statement as a personal commitment. And just minutes after the president spoke in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage they got their wish.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It just made me want to get up and rush down there faster before he made any moves, before they passed any constitutional laws or whatever.
MATTINGLY: It is a message multiplied 3200 times and climbing at San Francisco city hall, where same-sex marriages continued for an 11 day. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sharply critical, comparing the president's support for the amendment to standing in the courthouse door obstructing equal rights.
GAVIN NEWSOM (D), MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO: And I'll be honest with you, you know, the president, he can happily stand and fly on some aircraft carrier anytime he wants but he should keep his hands off the constitution of the United States of America.
MATTINGLY: The strong words are just one sign of how fiercely political and deeply personal the issue was before the president even spoke.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm proud that against gay marriage. I'm glad he made that presentation.
MATTINGLY: It's a question of who should decide, the courts, where gay marriage supporters believe the Constitution is on their side, or the voters, where a clear majority is against gay marriage.
GOV. MITT ROMNEY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: I don't think anyone ever imagined that we would have courts and local officials defining marriage in a way that has no historical precedent whatsoever and claiming that it's been in the Constitution all along.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTINGLY: Nonetheless that constitutional question headed back to court here in California. In the meantime, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer says he wants the state Supreme Court here to weigh in on this issue and decide if the city of San Francisco should be allowed to continue issuing licenses to gay couples -- Aaron.
BROWN: So does that mean he's going to somehow take to it the Supreme Court? Does he have standing to take it to the Supreme Court? How is that going to happen?
MATTINGLY: He is going to file with the state Supreme Court, asking the state's high court to go ahead and rule on this, bypassing all of the legal cases that are now pending against the city of San Francisco. He wants to bypass all that and hopefully get a quicker resolution by going straight to the top.
BROWN: David, thank you very much -- David Mattingly with us tonight. On now to Colorado Springs, Colorado. We're joined by James Dobson. Dr. Dobson is the founder and, as many of you know, the chairman of the board of Focus on the Family. Pleased to see him with us tonight. Let's see how much ground we can cover, sir, in 4 1/2 minutes. In a sense, why does it matter to you what a couple in San Francisco does, calls itself, behaves? How does it affect your life, your city, your culture, or anything else?
DR. JAMES DOBSON, PRESIDENT, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: Well, Aaron, it affects the entire nation and, through the United States, the entire world. What's at stake here is the future of the family itself. You know, for 3,000 years, marriages have been honored in law and in custom in cultures all over the world. And all of a sudden now, there's this stampede to change the understanding of the Constitution and the understanding of the family. And it has incredible implications. It's a social experiment that is certain to lead to disaster, in our view.
BROWN: I understand that. I wonder if I can bring you back to the question. Can you tell me how it causes you or the culture any harm? We heard from somebody last week, a couple that had just gotten married, two men. And they said that, when they go to the hospital now, they can answer that question, yes, we are family. Why is that a bad thing?
DOBSON: Well, you know, there are ways to address rights to such activities as that. There's a way -- there are ways to deal with that, not only for gays, but for, we'll say, two widows or a brother and sister or others who are committed to each other. There are ways that that can be handled. But don't call it marriage, because, when you begin to redefine marriage, then there's no place to stop. Instead of basing the definition of marriage on tradition and, in our case, theology and on the Constitution and other things, when it comes down to rights, then it can be anything anybody calls it. And so that's an open door to polygamy, to group marriage, to marriage that the state has no interest in, so people are coming and going. That's exactly what's happened in Scandinavia, where 60 percent of the families are now breaking up and 60 percent of the children live in situations where there is a marriage out of wedlock. It has destroyed marriage there and it will destroy it here.
BROWN: Let me -- I'm really working hard at understanding this, truly. How does the marriage of two gay people impact the family lives of two straight people? Why would it cause the breakdown of straight family life?
DOBSON: I'm trying real hard to explain it to you here. BROWN: I know you are. And I appreciate it.
DOBSON: And I don't think you're listening to me.
BROWN: I'm listening to every word, sir. That's not fair.
DOBSON: I am concerned about the impact of this decision on the nation. You don't make your policy decisions on the basis of a couple or an individual. You make it in terms of the social experiment that's involved here and what will happen if we go in this direction. What it means is that the definition of marriage will mean everything. And when it means everything, it means nothing.
BROWN: OK.
DOBSON: That means you have instable families, with people going and coming. And you have children, especially boys, who do not function well with a lack of stability. And that has all kinds of social implications.
BROWN: Are you more accepting of the idea of civil unions, something that provide the same legal guarantees of marriage, but under a different word?
DOBSON: No, that's what we call a quasi-marriage. And I think that weakens and interferes with the stability of marriage itself. I've already mentioned that the so-called rights issue can be dealt with. But just don't call it marriage. You have to protect the sanctity of marriage. And even though you don't understand what I'm saying, Aaron -- and I don't mean any disrespect -- but 66 percent of the American people oppose gay marriage.
BROWN: No, I understand that.
DOBSON: This is not a right-wing, extremist view. This is the way it has been for 3,000 years.
BROWN: I'm sorry. I just want to come back one more time on this one, because I got confused.You said it's OK to give people of all -- straights, cousins, whatever -- a legal umbrella on which to operate under, but you don't want to call it civil unions either? Is that correct, just so I'm clear?
DOBSON: Well, what we're really talking about here is the distribution of rights.
BROWN: Right.
DOBSON: Let's suppose we're talking about insurance and other things. If you're going to single out those who say they are gay -- and all we have to go on is their explanation of that -- and then they get something that other people don't, if you're going to distribute those kinds of rights, you need not to be discriminatory, but to give it also to, as I mentioned before, two widows who are committed to each other, two sisters, two brothers, others who live in a household like that.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBSON: But don't call it marriage. You can even have it one man and one woman. But don't base it on a sexual relationship. It ought to be nondiscriminatory, if you're going to do that.
BROWN: Good to talk you too you, sir. It's always nice to see you. Thank you.
DOBSON: Good to talk to you, Aaron.
BROWN: Thank you, sir, very much. We'll talk with the writer Andrew Sullivan, who sees this a bit differently, after the break. This is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Andrew Sullivan is a writer and a blogger. He opposes abortion, tough on defense, voted for President Bush in the last election, but won't, he says, in the next. In his latest blog, he writes: "The Republican Party today lost the support of most gay people for a generation."Mr. Sullivan joins us from Washington tonight. We're always pleased to see him. And we are tonight. In a way, I think we're picking up on where we left off last week or the week before. Look, did the -- has the gay community, has your community pushed too far too fast in a society that can't, in some respects, keep up with it?
ANDREW SULLIVAN, ANDREWSULLIVAN.COM: No, I don't think so. I think families and friend and people are happy to talk about this, are open to this. And we've been discussing it across the country in different states. What happened today is, the president said, enough. We're not going to let the states decide. We're not going to let legislatures and courts hassle this out. We're not going to let people find their own way to an end. We're going to actually put this in the Constitution of the United States, which is a huge body blow to any gay person in this country. It's the equivalent of saying, you're no longer really a fully equal citizen in this country. We're going to actually single out a group of people in the Constitution and say, you are going to not have equal rights in this respect. I think, you know, a law, other things are tolerable and passable and we can talk about them and debate. But the Constitution, even if you disagree with marriage rights for gay people, to actually put that in the Constitution of the United States is an incredibly extreme and radical measure.
BROWN: Actually, just as an aside, I think one of the most interesting things of whatever it is that is in front of us on this issue is exactly that question, whether people, regardless of how they feel about the issue of same-sex marriage, think it, as we said at the beginning, rises to the level of a constitutional amendment. The president said these amendments are reserved for really important issues and this is a really important issue. It's culturally important.
SULLIVAN: But the Constitution has never been used to deny a group of people rights in this country. And to use a very explosive and emotional cultural issue that divides people and stirs up emotions, as it inevitably will, and to put that in the Constitution is really I think a step. I'm an old-fashioned conservative, believes that states' rights matters, that we should actually allow the states to take up a different position on this. I think Massachusetts will always have a different view than Alabama. And I think the whole genius of federalism is that one state can go one way, another state can go another. But what the president is saying is that he wants every state, regardless of their own position, to have the same position. And that, I think, is a terribly divisive and aggressive move.
BROWN: I know I've asked this before of you. And I'm going to again. In a sense, why not take all of the legal protection of marriage, every ounce of it, OK, but just call it something else? It will make a lot of people a lot easier to deal with right now.
SULLIVAN: Well, some people are proposing that around the country.
BROWN: Yes.
SULLIVAN: But, remember, that this amendment to the Constitution would ban that as well.
BROWN: Well, we don't know that, because there is -- I mean, again, there are a number of theories about the president specifically said that he did not support that notion today.
SULLIVAN: But he endorsed the Musgrave amendment, which bans marriage and all the legal incidents thereof. And you heard James Dobson just before saying he doesn't approve of anything that would give gay couples civil acknowledgment and civil recognition. The amendment, as it is currently written, would strip gay people of any protection whatsoever in their relationships. It would invalidate Vermont civil unions and it would invalidate Massachusetts civil unions and California civil unions.
BROWN: Do you think it is possible that this debate, which will probably play out over a period of not months, but maybe years, might, in the end, be good for the gay community, that it might force people to think about issues they have not wanted to think about and you may come out of this a winner?
SULLIVAN: I think we already have in many respects. I think the sight of those people in San Francisco lining up around the block, they're not threatening anybody. They want to live their lives in peace and quiet and commitment. These are conservative values of committing to one another in fidelity and love and family. How this can be a threat to anybody, I don't know. I welcome this debate. I just think taking it to the level of the Constitution is like dropping a nuclear bomb on this debate and silencing it forever. We need time and space and we need the states to be left alone to decide this for themselves.
BROWN: Are you going to vote in November?
(LAUGHTER)
SULLIVAN: I'm not going to -- I can't, as a gay person, support any party that wants to strip a person of basic civil rights. It's just -- I can't imagine that a president would do that, would single out a group of people and say, you guys and only you guys, cannot have the same rights as everybody else. I think it's appalling and unconscionable. And I hope that the Senate and the House and other responsible people prevent it from happening.
BROWN: Always good to see you. Thank you.
SULLIVAN: Thank you very much.
BROWN: Thank you very much. Up next, what may be tomorrow's controversial topic. We expect it will be, Mel Gibson's "The Passion." How much of what viewers will see when the movie premieres on Wednesday is fact? From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: "The Passion of the Christ" opens tomorrow nationwide. And we're guessing we don't have to tell you, it's Mel Gibson's controversial new movie, which has been triggering protests and raids for months. Google Mr. Gibson and the title and you'll get more than 55,000 results. By now, we know the two-hour film is a dramatic and graphic, quite graphic, recreation of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, his crucifixion. It's not a documentary, but Mr. Gibson has said he was committed to making his movie as realistic as possible. So how accurate is it? Here's NEWSNIGHT's Beth Nissen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BETH NISSEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Should viewers of "The Passion of the Christ" take Mel Gibson's vision as gospel? The work of scores of biblical scholars and historians was summarized in the "Newsweek" magazine cover story, "Who Really Killed Jesus?" by managing editor Jon Meacham, himself a student of biblical history. He has seen the movie twice.
JON MEACHAM, "NEWSWEEK": I think the basic means of crucifixion in Gibson's movie is essentially right. This was a terrible way to die.
NISSEN: Only a few of the film's horribly graphic details are in dispute. Gibson shows nails being driven into Christ's palms, which conflicts with archaeological findings.
MEACHAM: Most suggests that the nail would go through the wrist, which would obviously physically keep you on the cross.
NISSEN: Otherwise, Gibson's bloody depiction of Christ suffering on the cross is in accordance with historical sources on this commonly used form of capital punishment.
MEACHAM: Death by crucifixion was wretched, horrible, violent. It's the reason we have the word excruciating.
NISSEN: The film also accurately portrays the public nature of this form of execution for those found guilty of sedition in Roman- occupied Palestine.
MEACHAM: The point of the cross was that it was a public warning to others. You were on that hill. You were on those pieces of wood. And the message was, if you don't fall in line, this will happen to you.
NISSEN: Gibson's film diverges more from historical even some biblical sources in its depiction of how Jesus was sentenced to death and by whom.
MEACHAM: The central historical problem is Pilate. That's where he went sort of off the rail, by making Pilate such a good guy.
NISSEN: The film depicts Pontius Pilate as a Roman leader concerned with justice, reluctant to sentence Jesus to death, but persuaded to do so by a Jewish mob and the temple high priest, a portrayal that doesn't square with historical records of Pilate's tyrannical rule.
MEACHAM: One historian describes Pontius Pilate as stubborn, cruel, and of inflexible disposition, quite the opposite of the just Roman ruler.
NISSEN: Gibson chose to use the Bible as his key source, which, for historians, is problematic.
MEACHAM: The Gospel accounts may contain important spiritual truths, theological truths, but they're not necessarily documents in which the chronology of events, the nature of events in time can be taken as literally true.
NISSEN: And biblical scholars, even Catholic leaders fault Gibson for how he's used the Gospels, making a composite of the New Testament's four varying accounts of the crucifixion. Gibson, for example, ignored a passage from the Book of John in which it is the chief priests and temple officers who call for Jesus' crucifixion and instead blends accounts from the other three books that stress the role of the crowd.
MEACHAM: If you take "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children" line from Matthew and put it in the larger crowd scene, before Pilate, then you get a sense that the Jewish mob made that cry, as opposed to a certain element of the Jewish society at that time. You could come away from this movie believing that the Jews killed Jesus. That's not what happened.
NISSEN: What did happen? Who did kill Jesus?
MEACHAM: As a matter of history, Pontius Pilate and the Roman Empire killed Jesus. It was Pontius Pilate saying, if you think you're the king of the Jews, this is what happens to you, because there's only one king of the Jews, and that's Caesar.
NISSEN: Historians and scholars know there will be many who take this film on faith.
MEACHAM: People will go to see this never-ending story, this eternally, perennially fascinating story that is only going to stop being told when the kingdom of God comes.
NISSEN: And will surely be discussed as to its truths, its details until then. Beth Nissen, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Morning papers after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (ROOSTER CROWING)
BROWN: OK, time to check morning papers from around the country. This is the kind of news day that's going to sell a lot of papers, because you got some hot-button issues out there. And we'll do them quickly.
"Dallas Morning News": "Bush Backs Gay Marriage Ban. Candidates Won't Be Able to Hold Their Peace on Tricky Issue." I don't disagree with that. They also -- the Mel Gibson movie is on the front, too: "Too Young For Passion. Experts Say Gibson Film Can Uplift or Overwhelm Them." That's "The Dallas Morning News." Not far away.
I don't know why we're into Texas tonight, but "The San Antonio Express-News." "Bush Attacks Gay Marriage" is the way they phrase it, the editors at that fine newspaper. "Philadelphia Inquirer" leads also with the gay marriage ban. "Bush Seeks Gay Marriage Pan," pretty straightforward, "Urges Congress to Amend Constitution."
What I found interesting up there, I guess this is Pennsylvanians. Less than half of Pennsylvanians support the idea of a constitutional amendment, though 64 percent oppose gay marriage. So people are starting to think about whether that balance and whether the issue rises to a constitutional amendment.
"The "Richmond Times-Dispatch." "Bush Wants Ban on Gay Marriage" on one side. "Rugged Cross" is the headline on the Mel Gibson movie. I don't mean this crassly, but this is the most brilliantly marketed movie I've ever seen in my life. It is unbelievable.How we doing on time, Terry (ph)? Thank you.
"Passion's Cross" is the headline in "The Detroit Free Press." And down in corner, "Bush Wants Ban on Gay Marriage." So everybody around the country pretty much leading the same way. "Bush Wants Ban On Bay Marriage. President Calls For Amendment to Block Activist Judges And Local Officials. Dems Say He's Pandering to the Right."
That's the way "The Chicago Sun-Times" headlines it. But you can't see "The Sun" thing, because they have got this big darn baseball there. The weather tomorrow in Chicago is adequate. That's morning papers. Here's Bill Hemmer with a look at what's coming up tomorrow on "AMERICAN MORNING."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Aaron, thank you. Tomorrow here on "AMERICAN MORNING," a high school wrestler in the biggest fight of his life, trying to remember it. He developed amnesia when he hit his head during a championship match. Now, what can doctors do and his family to try and bring back his past? Sanjay helps us with this very intriguing story, tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. Eastern time, right here on "AMERICAN MORNING." Hope to see you then -- Aaron.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Bill, thank you. Thank all of you for joining us tonight. "LOU DOBBS" is next for most of you. And all of us and perhaps all of you will be with us tomorrow, 10:00 Eastern time. Until then, good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.comMarriage; Pentagon Charges Guantanamo Prisoners>
Aired February 24, 2004 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone.A colleague came into my office today and asked if I thought today was big. I knew exactly what he meant. Yes, I think today is big. Any time you talk about amending the Constitution of the United States you are talking big.Tonight we'll spend plenty of time on the question of gay marriage. We'll have a series of reports. We have a couple of guests with very different points of view. That's important to do and we'll do it but as all this goes along, this process which thankfully takes a while, we need to look long and hard at the larger question. Is this the sort of issue that rises to the level of a constitutional amendment? Is it up there with slavery or a woman's right to vote? Does it stand there next to free speech or the protection from unwarranted search and seizure by the government? Or, is it perhaps a smaller issue than that, not an unimportant issue, but smaller than the great issues we reserve or should reserve for the Constitution? Whichever, it is the bulk of the program tonight and it starts the whip. Our Senior White House Correspondent John King, John a headline from you.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the president today insisted that gay marriage is an issue that meets that test, that high test of changing the Constitution. He says the most fundamental institution of civilization is at risk. His critics say perhaps the president is worried his conservative support is at risk -- Aaron.
BROWN: John, thank you. We'll get to you at the top tonight.On the Democratic side of what almost certainly now will be an election issue in the fall, CNN's Candy Crowley in Houston, Texas tonight, Candy a headline.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the truth is Democrats would rather not talk about gay marriage but there are some things beyond their control, so tonight John Edwards and John Kerry talked.
BROWN: Candy, thank you.Now to the question of how this is playing around the country and in San Francisco, which the last time I checked is part of the country. CNN's David Mattingly is there, David a headline from you.
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, it is an issue that is fiercely political and deeply personal. That's why we hear strong words on both sides of gay marriage tonight from San Francisco Bay all the way to Boston Harbor -- Aaron.
BROWN: David, thank you.And finally to the Pentagon, an entirely different matter, a decision to put a pair of prisoners from Guantanamo on trial, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, Jamie a headline.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, Pentagon officials admit these two are not the biggest fish they're holding. One of them made a recruiting videotape for al Qaeda. The other drove Osama bin Laden around. But they are the first to face charges of war crimes and, Aaron, here's the kicker. Even if they're found not guilty the U.S. could still hold them in prison indefinitely.
BROWN: Jamie, thank you. We'll get back to you and the rest shortly.Also coming up tonight on the program the most talked about movie in a long time maybe ever, "The Passion of Christ," what's fact, what isn't, an expert's opinion tonight.And we'll end up the evening with a start on tomorrow morning, your papers for Wednesday, all that and more in a busy hour ahead.We begin tonight at the end of a pretty big day. We can say this with a fair degree of confidence because no matter where you stand on the question of gays and marriage and state's rights and all the rest, it is a very big day when the president of the United States enters the fray. It is bigger still when the president does so with an eye towards changing the fundamental law of the land. A number of reports tonight, beginning with CNN's John King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING (voice-over): It is scenes like this in San Francisco that the president says left him no choice but to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
KING: The White House says Mr. Bush favors an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman but lets individual states allow civil unions that give legal recognition and partnership benefits to gay couples.
BUSH: Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.
KING: Such an amendment is a major priority for religious conservatives critical to Mr. Bush this election year and Democrats were quick to accuse the president of pandering.
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: It's about politics, an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country solely for partisan advantage.KING: Gay rights advocates, including the Log Cabin Republicans, say the president can no longer claim to be a compassionate conservative.
PATRICK GUERRIERO, LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS: The president has jeopardized the over one million gay and lesbian votes he received in 2000. This is really a declaration of war on gay and lesbian families.
KING: Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage but not all of those opponents think the issue warrants changing the Constitution.
BILL MCINTURFF, GOP POLLSTER: It's about 50/50 as a proposition, so in other words this is not a slam dunk.KING: Amending the Constitution is no easy task. A proposed change first must pass both the House and the Senate with two-thirds support and then be ratified by 38 states.In the last campaign, Mr. Bush said gay marriage was a state issue but now aides say he was swayed by court rulings in Massachusetts, the thousands of gay weddings allowed in San Francisco in defiance of state law and where local governments in New Mexico and elsewhere might soon issue gay marriage licenses as well.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Now the president called on Congress to act promptly but even many social conservative allies on this issue doubt there are the votes in Congress to pass the proposed amendment this year, no doubt at all. Aaron, know that the president has now put this very emotional divisive issue front and center in the presidential campaign.
BROWN: And how will it -- I agree with you though I'm not entirely sure how it plays out in the campaign. Are they going to make ads about it? Is he going to make speeches on it or is it just there?KING: Unclear on the ad question. They do say this will be added quite soon to the president's routine stump speech and the Bush campaign is also saying this is another issue in their view on which Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the man they believe will be their opponent, has waffled, has had a number of different positions or has been evading tough questions on the issue. They insist they're doing this not to divide the country, yet they also say privately more than publicly that they believe this is an issue that benefits the president.
BROWN: John, thank you, our Senior White House Correspondent John King. John touched a bit on the politics of this, at least as it is seen in the White House. Now the challenge facing the Democrats who find themselves facing a wedge issue, if you will, sharp end first.Here's CNN's Candy Crowley.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY (voice-over): Gay marriage is a loser issue for Democrats. Supporting it turns off culturally conservative voters in southern and must win swing states. Opposing it ticks off the culturally liberal base.Both John Kerry and John Edwards are against gay marriage and against a constitutional amendment to ban it, which makes the whole issue mighty uncomfortable.Why are you opposed to gay marriage?
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I just don't support gay marriage myself personally.
CROWLEY: Why?
EDWARDS: Because I don't think it's the right thing to do.
CROWLEY: You don't think it's the right thing to do. Don't you think that...
EDWARDS: Thank you all very much.
CROWLEY: They really, really would rather not talk about this.
EDWARDS: I don't know.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Because I believe as a matter of belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's my belief.
CROWLEY: This is a particularly sticky wicket for Kerry, one of only 14 Senators who voted in 1996 against the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Bottom line from both the Senator candidates, leave gay marriage to the states and change the subject.
EDWARDS: Well, what this indicates is the president is not in touch with what's going on with people's lives. I mean if he really wants to help married couples, what he should be doing is helping them with all their economic problems.
CROWLEY: In Georgia for a second day, Edwards put his best foot forward walking presidentially down the grand staircase of the State House with allied lawmakers. In a twist only politics can provide, Edwards opened his standard stump speech attacking the president for only picking on John Kerry.
EDWARDS: And, by the way, today I've got a message for somebody in Washington and that message is this. Not so fact George Bush, you don't get to decide who our nominee is.
CROWLEY: Kerry, working his way through Ohio on a jobs tour didn't like the president's Monday night speech either.
KERRY: Last night was almost a fantasy speech about a world that doesn't exist for most Americans. I believe we deserve a president who is going to fight to make the playing field fair for the workers of this country.
CROWLEY: But, hey, at least he got picked on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: The end of the day the Senators John had this tally, gay marriage two nays, a constitutional amendment against gay marriage two nays, George Bush's speech two nays -- Aaron.
BROWN: Well that part is simple enough. I gather from all of this you will not hear unless forced, maybe at gunpoint, the Democrats talking about this at all.
CROWLEY: You know it's not a real workable issue. Now there are, you know, pockets of the country where it is. When they're in front of liberal groups at fund-raisers, when you see some of the party's core out there don't doubt this is also an issue that activates, and I think we heard this in John's speech -- I'm sorry in John's piece, that in fact this does activate those who are pro-gay marriage. So, the calculation here is by the White House is that there are more who side with the president than who side with the Democrats and, at the moment, that is also the Democrats' calculation, not something they want to bring up in most places in the country.
BROWN: Candy, thank you very much, Candy Crowley tonight.If there is any doubt how fierce this debate might become, consider where it is already going. Politicians like mobsters and radio shock jocks generally abide by an unwritten law. Family members, especially kids, are off limits. But in a debate that's all about family, what defines one, who gets to create one, the guidelines can become very confused.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN ARAVOSIS, CREATOR, WWW.DEARMARY.COM: Dear Mary: This Friday morning we were married in San Francisco after driving all night from Los Angeles. The lines were long but I wish you could have been there to see the tremendous outpouring of joy and happiness and love...
BROWN (voice-over): "Newsweek" has called it an audacious surprise attack.
ARAVOSIS: Dear Mary: I know you've heard it many times before but how could you let this happen?
BROWN: Political opponents say it is tacky and disrespectful.
ARAVOSIS: Do something, Mary. You have an obligation to yourself and to every gay and lesbian person in this country. Speak out for what's right.
BROWN: It takes the purely political and makes it intensely personal.
ARAVOSIS: You're scared to oppose your father's opinion. Wow, you should be proud of who you are.
BROWN: The Web site is dearmary.com and the Mary that these more than 9,000 postcards are addressed to is the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.
ARAVOSIS: You know what, Dick Cheney talks about my family. I can talk about his family. Let's talk about gays. Let's talk about their relationships. Let's talk about your kids whether they're gay or not and whether that's okay.
BROWN: In the year 2000, Mary Cheney was a visible member of her father's campaign even though according to "The Washington Post" she had a long term female partner and wore what appeared to be a wedding band. Indeed, her father defended the right to free choice.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.
BROWN: That was four years ago. Last month, the vice president appeared to retreat from his earlier stance saying he would support whatever the president's position was on gay marriage.Mary Cheney is now a senior member of her father's political team and has made no public comment and a campaign spokesman refused CNN's request for an interview.
ARAVOSIS: She's running her father's political campaign now for reelection. We think it's highly relevant to ask his campaign director what they feel about gay relationships when last we heard she's in one.
BROWN: And so with a touch of humor the battle is joined.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: And it is just beginning.Still ahead on the program tonight we'll come back to the issue of gay marriage, a discussion in our second half hour, a look at the reaction from around the country as well.And we'll talk with Andrew Sullivan and Dr. James Dobson who see this all quite differently.Up next the first charges have now been filed against prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. We'll have the latest on that.And in Segment 7 tonight, Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of Christ," what does it tell us about how Jesus died? How accurate is it, that and more as NEWSNIGHT continues from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A first today in the Bush administration's war on terror, the country's war on terror as well. The Pentagon has brought formal charges against two of the prisoners being held at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Both men are believed to be members of al Qaeda and both will be tried before a military commission.Here's our Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (voice-over): The first al Qaeda detainees to face charges are described in Pentagon indictments as bodyguards and drivers for Osama bin Laden and are accused of helping bin Laden plan and carry out terrorist attacks. The formal charge is conspiracy to commit war crimes. In a Pentagon statement, a Yemeni suspect, Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul is described as "a key al Qaeda propagandist who produced videos glorifying the murder of Americans."He's said to have made this recruiting video about the October, 2000 attack on the USS Cole to motivate other al Qaeda members to continue attacks against the United States.And the documents alleged he was also ordered by bin Laden to arrange a satellite downlink to watch the September 11 attacks but failed because of the mountainous terrain.A Sudanese man, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi is identified as "a key al Qaeda accountant, bin Laden bodyguard and weapons smuggler." He is said to have shepherded bin Laden around Afghanistan and helped him flee from Kandahar as U.S. forces were closing in, in late 2001.The accused have not yet met with their Pentagon-appointed attorneys who are echoing the concerns of human rights groups that the military commissions fall short of American standards of justice.
LT. CMR. PHILIP SUNDEL, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We have very, very grave concerns about whether our client can get a fair trial in this process. The process is not designed with the checks and balances that we expect to see in a criminal justice process.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: These two men are the first charged but they're not the most important al Qaeda suspects held by the U.S. in Guantanamo. In fact, neither one will face the death penalty.It's also the case though that even a not guilty verdict will not guarantee they'll be freed. The Pentagon has made it clear they plan to hold onto anyone that they think poses a future risk despite what the military commissions decide -- Aaron.
BROWN: Ultimately, the courts are getting involved in this. The Supreme Court will get involved in this. Do you have any idea who the witnesses are to this, how this is going to unfold?
MCINTYRE: Well, it's not clear that there will be witnesses. Looking at the charges they filed in this case, for instance, one guy is charged with making a videotape, the other one with driving bin Laden around and shepherding him around the country.The defense attorneys say they have yet to see any of the evidence against their clients. In fact, they've yet to talk to them. They're just trying to get an interpreter.So, as they announced these charges today, these defense attorneys are just trying to figure out how solid the case is. They say they're not happy with the process but they're just hoping that the military judges will "do the right thing."
BROWN: And a process question, are they -- do they have a Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination?
MCINTYRE: Well, they do to an extent but there are some differences between these military commissions and the U.S. justice system. For instance, in certain circumstances, the government in these cases can actually eavesdrop on conversations between the defendants and their attorneys and that's something obviously that would be strictly prohibited in the U.S. regular criminal system.
BROWN: It would be. Jamie, thank you very much, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon tonight.The Money Line Roundup starts tonight with Martha Stewart and the answer to the burning question ever since her trial began. Will she testify? Late today her lawyer said no. He expects to call just a single witness tomorrow on her behalf and then rest his case."Fortune" magazine is out with a list of the most admired companies and, for the second year running, Wal-Mart is number one. Berkshire Hathaway, that's Warren Buffett's company, came in second and Southwest Airlines came in third. Companies are me in second and Southwest Airlines came in third. for the second year running, Wal- Mart is number one, ranked by "Fortune" based on investment value, along with quality of service, products and their management.Consumer confidence took a dip for the month, the confidence (unintelligible) index falling to the lowest level since October this after more hopeful numbers in January.Wall Street in the meantime had a lackluster day, which is to say it was down all of it. Market watcher say not so much profit taking as a shortage of buyers keeping prices low today.Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight, "The Passion" how accurate is it.And up next, America's top two intelligence figures defend their agencies on Capitol Hill, we take a break first.This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A quick roundup of some of the stories that made news around the country today starting with two more audio tapes claiming to be from al Qaeda. The CIA says it believes the voice on both tapes is probably Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al Qaeda second in command. The taped messages, which aired on two Arab satellite news networks, warned of more attacks like those on 9/11 and criticized France's push to ban Islamic head scarves in schools.On to the al Qaeda manhunt, today U.S. military officials say the man believed to have been a top aide to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed last week in a U.S. raid in Iraq. Zarqawi was suspected of writing a letter to al Qaeda seeking help with the insurgency targeted in the U.S.-led coalition and Iraqis who cooperate with the United States, the U.S. government offering a $10 million bounty for information leading to Zarqawi's arrest.In Morocco, the northern part of the country, aftershocks continue tonight following a 6.5 earthquake that struck the region before dawn. Here are the latest numbers 564 people believed to have died, another 300 hurt in the quake, most of the victims women and children. The men in the region mainly work overseas.In Washington, the Senate Intelligence Committee held its annual hearing on worldwide terror threats today. It coincided with a "New York Times" report today that German intelligence officials gave the CIA the first name of one of the 9/11 terrorists back in March of 1999, asked the CIA to check him out.When asked about the report during his testimony today, the CIA Director George Tenet defended his agency, said he would discuss the issue in more detail in a closed session with the committee, which brings us to the public portion.Here's CNN's David Ensor.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On a day when another threatening audio tape from al Qaeda was made public, a stark assessment from the nation's intelligence chiefs of the continuing terrorist threat.
GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: Even catastrophic attacks on the scale of 9/11 remain within al Qaeda's reach. Make no mistake these plots are hatched abroad but they target U.S. soil and those of our allies.
ENSOR: Tenet said Osama bin Laden's group is still trying to attack with poison, chemical, biological, nuclear or a dirty bomb and said even if bin Laden himself is killed or captured the danger will remain for the foreseeable future. FBI Director Robert Mueller said the terrorists' potential targets are varied.
ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: Our transportation systems across the country, particularly subways, bridges in major cities, as well as the airlines, have been a continual focus of al Qaeda targeting.
ENSOR: Several Senators had pointed questions about why U.S. intelligence said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war when none have been found.
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: How can you build a policy of preemption on intelligence if we were so wrong in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq?
TENET: We're not perfect but we're pretty damn good at what we do and we care as much as you do about Iraq and whether we were right or wrong and we're going to work through it in a way where we tell the truth as to whether we were right or wrong.ENSOR (on camera): Tenet said the CIA-led team in Iraq looking for weapons is still getting new leads to follow up. He may get a more intense grilling on the WMD shortfall Thursday at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.David Ensor, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, we'll check morning papers, as always.Up next, we go back to the major story of the day, the president's proposal for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, how that is likely to play in an election year, take a break first.Around the world this is NEWSNIGHT
.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Back now to where we began the program and the night, and where we expect to return often in the months ahead. It seems fair to call them fighting words, President Bush saying he'll back a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage. The news wasn't unexpected. The president had warned he might do so. But expected or not, it eclipsed a lot of other news today. Everyone seems to have a reaction. On the reaction, here's CNN's David Mattingly.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For better or for worse.
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When, Ella Johnson and Erma Daniels (ph) decided to marry after years together, they wanted their I do's to be as much a political statement as a personal commitment. And just minutes after the president spoke in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage they got their wish.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It just made me want to get up and rush down there faster before he made any moves, before they passed any constitutional laws or whatever.
MATTINGLY: It is a message multiplied 3200 times and climbing at San Francisco city hall, where same-sex marriages continued for an 11 day. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sharply critical, comparing the president's support for the amendment to standing in the courthouse door obstructing equal rights.
GAVIN NEWSOM (D), MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO: And I'll be honest with you, you know, the president, he can happily stand and fly on some aircraft carrier anytime he wants but he should keep his hands off the constitution of the United States of America.
MATTINGLY: The strong words are just one sign of how fiercely political and deeply personal the issue was before the president even spoke.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm proud that against gay marriage. I'm glad he made that presentation.
MATTINGLY: It's a question of who should decide, the courts, where gay marriage supporters believe the Constitution is on their side, or the voters, where a clear majority is against gay marriage.
GOV. MITT ROMNEY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: I don't think anyone ever imagined that we would have courts and local officials defining marriage in a way that has no historical precedent whatsoever and claiming that it's been in the Constitution all along.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTINGLY: Nonetheless that constitutional question headed back to court here in California. In the meantime, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer says he wants the state Supreme Court here to weigh in on this issue and decide if the city of San Francisco should be allowed to continue issuing licenses to gay couples -- Aaron.
BROWN: So does that mean he's going to somehow take to it the Supreme Court? Does he have standing to take it to the Supreme Court? How is that going to happen?
MATTINGLY: He is going to file with the state Supreme Court, asking the state's high court to go ahead and rule on this, bypassing all of the legal cases that are now pending against the city of San Francisco. He wants to bypass all that and hopefully get a quicker resolution by going straight to the top.
BROWN: David, thank you very much -- David Mattingly with us tonight. On now to Colorado Springs, Colorado. We're joined by James Dobson. Dr. Dobson is the founder and, as many of you know, the chairman of the board of Focus on the Family. Pleased to see him with us tonight. Let's see how much ground we can cover, sir, in 4 1/2 minutes. In a sense, why does it matter to you what a couple in San Francisco does, calls itself, behaves? How does it affect your life, your city, your culture, or anything else?
DR. JAMES DOBSON, PRESIDENT, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: Well, Aaron, it affects the entire nation and, through the United States, the entire world. What's at stake here is the future of the family itself. You know, for 3,000 years, marriages have been honored in law and in custom in cultures all over the world. And all of a sudden now, there's this stampede to change the understanding of the Constitution and the understanding of the family. And it has incredible implications. It's a social experiment that is certain to lead to disaster, in our view.
BROWN: I understand that. I wonder if I can bring you back to the question. Can you tell me how it causes you or the culture any harm? We heard from somebody last week, a couple that had just gotten married, two men. And they said that, when they go to the hospital now, they can answer that question, yes, we are family. Why is that a bad thing?
DOBSON: Well, you know, there are ways to address rights to such activities as that. There's a way -- there are ways to deal with that, not only for gays, but for, we'll say, two widows or a brother and sister or others who are committed to each other. There are ways that that can be handled. But don't call it marriage, because, when you begin to redefine marriage, then there's no place to stop. Instead of basing the definition of marriage on tradition and, in our case, theology and on the Constitution and other things, when it comes down to rights, then it can be anything anybody calls it. And so that's an open door to polygamy, to group marriage, to marriage that the state has no interest in, so people are coming and going. That's exactly what's happened in Scandinavia, where 60 percent of the families are now breaking up and 60 percent of the children live in situations where there is a marriage out of wedlock. It has destroyed marriage there and it will destroy it here.
BROWN: Let me -- I'm really working hard at understanding this, truly. How does the marriage of two gay people impact the family lives of two straight people? Why would it cause the breakdown of straight family life?
DOBSON: I'm trying real hard to explain it to you here. BROWN: I know you are. And I appreciate it.
DOBSON: And I don't think you're listening to me.
BROWN: I'm listening to every word, sir. That's not fair.
DOBSON: I am concerned about the impact of this decision on the nation. You don't make your policy decisions on the basis of a couple or an individual. You make it in terms of the social experiment that's involved here and what will happen if we go in this direction. What it means is that the definition of marriage will mean everything. And when it means everything, it means nothing.
BROWN: OK.
DOBSON: That means you have instable families, with people going and coming. And you have children, especially boys, who do not function well with a lack of stability. And that has all kinds of social implications.
BROWN: Are you more accepting of the idea of civil unions, something that provide the same legal guarantees of marriage, but under a different word?
DOBSON: No, that's what we call a quasi-marriage. And I think that weakens and interferes with the stability of marriage itself. I've already mentioned that the so-called rights issue can be dealt with. But just don't call it marriage. You have to protect the sanctity of marriage. And even though you don't understand what I'm saying, Aaron -- and I don't mean any disrespect -- but 66 percent of the American people oppose gay marriage.
BROWN: No, I understand that.
DOBSON: This is not a right-wing, extremist view. This is the way it has been for 3,000 years.
BROWN: I'm sorry. I just want to come back one more time on this one, because I got confused.You said it's OK to give people of all -- straights, cousins, whatever -- a legal umbrella on which to operate under, but you don't want to call it civil unions either? Is that correct, just so I'm clear?
DOBSON: Well, what we're really talking about here is the distribution of rights.
BROWN: Right.
DOBSON: Let's suppose we're talking about insurance and other things. If you're going to single out those who say they are gay -- and all we have to go on is their explanation of that -- and then they get something that other people don't, if you're going to distribute those kinds of rights, you need not to be discriminatory, but to give it also to, as I mentioned before, two widows who are committed to each other, two sisters, two brothers, others who live in a household like that.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBSON: But don't call it marriage. You can even have it one man and one woman. But don't base it on a sexual relationship. It ought to be nondiscriminatory, if you're going to do that.
BROWN: Good to talk you too you, sir. It's always nice to see you. Thank you.
DOBSON: Good to talk to you, Aaron.
BROWN: Thank you, sir, very much. We'll talk with the writer Andrew Sullivan, who sees this a bit differently, after the break. This is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Andrew Sullivan is a writer and a blogger. He opposes abortion, tough on defense, voted for President Bush in the last election, but won't, he says, in the next. In his latest blog, he writes: "The Republican Party today lost the support of most gay people for a generation."Mr. Sullivan joins us from Washington tonight. We're always pleased to see him. And we are tonight. In a way, I think we're picking up on where we left off last week or the week before. Look, did the -- has the gay community, has your community pushed too far too fast in a society that can't, in some respects, keep up with it?
ANDREW SULLIVAN, ANDREWSULLIVAN.COM: No, I don't think so. I think families and friend and people are happy to talk about this, are open to this. And we've been discussing it across the country in different states. What happened today is, the president said, enough. We're not going to let the states decide. We're not going to let legislatures and courts hassle this out. We're not going to let people find their own way to an end. We're going to actually put this in the Constitution of the United States, which is a huge body blow to any gay person in this country. It's the equivalent of saying, you're no longer really a fully equal citizen in this country. We're going to actually single out a group of people in the Constitution and say, you are going to not have equal rights in this respect. I think, you know, a law, other things are tolerable and passable and we can talk about them and debate. But the Constitution, even if you disagree with marriage rights for gay people, to actually put that in the Constitution of the United States is an incredibly extreme and radical measure.
BROWN: Actually, just as an aside, I think one of the most interesting things of whatever it is that is in front of us on this issue is exactly that question, whether people, regardless of how they feel about the issue of same-sex marriage, think it, as we said at the beginning, rises to the level of a constitutional amendment. The president said these amendments are reserved for really important issues and this is a really important issue. It's culturally important.
SULLIVAN: But the Constitution has never been used to deny a group of people rights in this country. And to use a very explosive and emotional cultural issue that divides people and stirs up emotions, as it inevitably will, and to put that in the Constitution is really I think a step. I'm an old-fashioned conservative, believes that states' rights matters, that we should actually allow the states to take up a different position on this. I think Massachusetts will always have a different view than Alabama. And I think the whole genius of federalism is that one state can go one way, another state can go another. But what the president is saying is that he wants every state, regardless of their own position, to have the same position. And that, I think, is a terribly divisive and aggressive move.
BROWN: I know I've asked this before of you. And I'm going to again. In a sense, why not take all of the legal protection of marriage, every ounce of it, OK, but just call it something else? It will make a lot of people a lot easier to deal with right now.
SULLIVAN: Well, some people are proposing that around the country.
BROWN: Yes.
SULLIVAN: But, remember, that this amendment to the Constitution would ban that as well.
BROWN: Well, we don't know that, because there is -- I mean, again, there are a number of theories about the president specifically said that he did not support that notion today.
SULLIVAN: But he endorsed the Musgrave amendment, which bans marriage and all the legal incidents thereof. And you heard James Dobson just before saying he doesn't approve of anything that would give gay couples civil acknowledgment and civil recognition. The amendment, as it is currently written, would strip gay people of any protection whatsoever in their relationships. It would invalidate Vermont civil unions and it would invalidate Massachusetts civil unions and California civil unions.
BROWN: Do you think it is possible that this debate, which will probably play out over a period of not months, but maybe years, might, in the end, be good for the gay community, that it might force people to think about issues they have not wanted to think about and you may come out of this a winner?
SULLIVAN: I think we already have in many respects. I think the sight of those people in San Francisco lining up around the block, they're not threatening anybody. They want to live their lives in peace and quiet and commitment. These are conservative values of committing to one another in fidelity and love and family. How this can be a threat to anybody, I don't know. I welcome this debate. I just think taking it to the level of the Constitution is like dropping a nuclear bomb on this debate and silencing it forever. We need time and space and we need the states to be left alone to decide this for themselves.
BROWN: Are you going to vote in November?
(LAUGHTER)
SULLIVAN: I'm not going to -- I can't, as a gay person, support any party that wants to strip a person of basic civil rights. It's just -- I can't imagine that a president would do that, would single out a group of people and say, you guys and only you guys, cannot have the same rights as everybody else. I think it's appalling and unconscionable. And I hope that the Senate and the House and other responsible people prevent it from happening.
BROWN: Always good to see you. Thank you.
SULLIVAN: Thank you very much.
BROWN: Thank you very much. Up next, what may be tomorrow's controversial topic. We expect it will be, Mel Gibson's "The Passion." How much of what viewers will see when the movie premieres on Wednesday is fact? From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: "The Passion of the Christ" opens tomorrow nationwide. And we're guessing we don't have to tell you, it's Mel Gibson's controversial new movie, which has been triggering protests and raids for months. Google Mr. Gibson and the title and you'll get more than 55,000 results. By now, we know the two-hour film is a dramatic and graphic, quite graphic, recreation of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, his crucifixion. It's not a documentary, but Mr. Gibson has said he was committed to making his movie as realistic as possible. So how accurate is it? Here's NEWSNIGHT's Beth Nissen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BETH NISSEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Should viewers of "The Passion of the Christ" take Mel Gibson's vision as gospel? The work of scores of biblical scholars and historians was summarized in the "Newsweek" magazine cover story, "Who Really Killed Jesus?" by managing editor Jon Meacham, himself a student of biblical history. He has seen the movie twice.
JON MEACHAM, "NEWSWEEK": I think the basic means of crucifixion in Gibson's movie is essentially right. This was a terrible way to die.
NISSEN: Only a few of the film's horribly graphic details are in dispute. Gibson shows nails being driven into Christ's palms, which conflicts with archaeological findings.
MEACHAM: Most suggests that the nail would go through the wrist, which would obviously physically keep you on the cross.
NISSEN: Otherwise, Gibson's bloody depiction of Christ suffering on the cross is in accordance with historical sources on this commonly used form of capital punishment.
MEACHAM: Death by crucifixion was wretched, horrible, violent. It's the reason we have the word excruciating.
NISSEN: The film also accurately portrays the public nature of this form of execution for those found guilty of sedition in Roman- occupied Palestine.
MEACHAM: The point of the cross was that it was a public warning to others. You were on that hill. You were on those pieces of wood. And the message was, if you don't fall in line, this will happen to you.
NISSEN: Gibson's film diverges more from historical even some biblical sources in its depiction of how Jesus was sentenced to death and by whom.
MEACHAM: The central historical problem is Pilate. That's where he went sort of off the rail, by making Pilate such a good guy.
NISSEN: The film depicts Pontius Pilate as a Roman leader concerned with justice, reluctant to sentence Jesus to death, but persuaded to do so by a Jewish mob and the temple high priest, a portrayal that doesn't square with historical records of Pilate's tyrannical rule.
MEACHAM: One historian describes Pontius Pilate as stubborn, cruel, and of inflexible disposition, quite the opposite of the just Roman ruler.
NISSEN: Gibson chose to use the Bible as his key source, which, for historians, is problematic.
MEACHAM: The Gospel accounts may contain important spiritual truths, theological truths, but they're not necessarily documents in which the chronology of events, the nature of events in time can be taken as literally true.
NISSEN: And biblical scholars, even Catholic leaders fault Gibson for how he's used the Gospels, making a composite of the New Testament's four varying accounts of the crucifixion. Gibson, for example, ignored a passage from the Book of John in which it is the chief priests and temple officers who call for Jesus' crucifixion and instead blends accounts from the other three books that stress the role of the crowd.
MEACHAM: If you take "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children" line from Matthew and put it in the larger crowd scene, before Pilate, then you get a sense that the Jewish mob made that cry, as opposed to a certain element of the Jewish society at that time. You could come away from this movie believing that the Jews killed Jesus. That's not what happened.
NISSEN: What did happen? Who did kill Jesus?
MEACHAM: As a matter of history, Pontius Pilate and the Roman Empire killed Jesus. It was Pontius Pilate saying, if you think you're the king of the Jews, this is what happens to you, because there's only one king of the Jews, and that's Caesar.
NISSEN: Historians and scholars know there will be many who take this film on faith.
MEACHAM: People will go to see this never-ending story, this eternally, perennially fascinating story that is only going to stop being told when the kingdom of God comes.
NISSEN: And will surely be discussed as to its truths, its details until then. Beth Nissen, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Morning papers after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (ROOSTER CROWING)
BROWN: OK, time to check morning papers from around the country. This is the kind of news day that's going to sell a lot of papers, because you got some hot-button issues out there. And we'll do them quickly.
"Dallas Morning News": "Bush Backs Gay Marriage Ban. Candidates Won't Be Able to Hold Their Peace on Tricky Issue." I don't disagree with that. They also -- the Mel Gibson movie is on the front, too: "Too Young For Passion. Experts Say Gibson Film Can Uplift or Overwhelm Them." That's "The Dallas Morning News." Not far away.
I don't know why we're into Texas tonight, but "The San Antonio Express-News." "Bush Attacks Gay Marriage" is the way they phrase it, the editors at that fine newspaper. "Philadelphia Inquirer" leads also with the gay marriage ban. "Bush Seeks Gay Marriage Pan," pretty straightforward, "Urges Congress to Amend Constitution."
What I found interesting up there, I guess this is Pennsylvanians. Less than half of Pennsylvanians support the idea of a constitutional amendment, though 64 percent oppose gay marriage. So people are starting to think about whether that balance and whether the issue rises to a constitutional amendment.
"The "Richmond Times-Dispatch." "Bush Wants Ban on Gay Marriage" on one side. "Rugged Cross" is the headline on the Mel Gibson movie. I don't mean this crassly, but this is the most brilliantly marketed movie I've ever seen in my life. It is unbelievable.How we doing on time, Terry (ph)? Thank you.
"Passion's Cross" is the headline in "The Detroit Free Press." And down in corner, "Bush Wants Ban on Gay Marriage." So everybody around the country pretty much leading the same way. "Bush Wants Ban On Bay Marriage. President Calls For Amendment to Block Activist Judges And Local Officials. Dems Say He's Pandering to the Right."
That's the way "The Chicago Sun-Times" headlines it. But you can't see "The Sun" thing, because they have got this big darn baseball there. The weather tomorrow in Chicago is adequate. That's morning papers. Here's Bill Hemmer with a look at what's coming up tomorrow on "AMERICAN MORNING."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Aaron, thank you. Tomorrow here on "AMERICAN MORNING," a high school wrestler in the biggest fight of his life, trying to remember it. He developed amnesia when he hit his head during a championship match. Now, what can doctors do and his family to try and bring back his past? Sanjay helps us with this very intriguing story, tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. Eastern time, right here on "AMERICAN MORNING." Hope to see you then -- Aaron.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Bill, thank you. Thank all of you for joining us tonight. "LOU DOBBS" is next for most of you. And all of us and perhaps all of you will be with us tomorrow, 10:00 Eastern time. Until then, good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.comMarriage; Pentagon Charges Guantanamo Prisoners>
