Sign in to comment!

Hannity

Dobson: Change Definition -- Marriage Quakes

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes", May 17, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Joining us now is the founder of Focus on the Family and author of the brand new book, "Marriage Under Fire." Dr. James Dobson is with us.

Dr. Dobson, I guess with all the happenings in Massachusetts today, I guess your book is very timely. What are your thoughts on the developments?

DR. JAMES DOBSON, AUTHOR, "MARRIAGE UNDER FIRE": Well, Sean, I'm heartsick about what's taken place in Massachusetts. It will spread across the country, and it has major implications for this wonderful 5,000-year- old institution that's been the bedrock of culture in every civilization in the history of the world.

And yet, we're about to throw it on the ash heap of history. And I deeply regret that, and I know millions of other Americans feel the same way.

HANNITY: Explain. The definition of marriage, the legal union of a man and a woman as a husband and a wife. Are we talking about people that literally want to alter the definition of what it is? And, you know, why should society have to change their views to accommodate people's agendas?

DOBSON: Sean, if it was just a matter of accommodating people, then who cares? But it has implications for the culture, for the nation, and especially for children.

Social scientists are absolutely consistent on this, that children who are raised by one mother and one father, committed to each other, are less likely to get into drugs, less likely to commit suicide or to be in poverty, or for the girls to get married in their teens.

HANNITY: Yes.

DOBSON: It has all kinds of implications. And so when we're talking about rights, the question has to be, whose rights?

HANNITY: Yes. Well, one of the issues that's come up is the constitutional amendment that the president is now supporting here. And one of the reasons that the president had to do this is because the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling had to be respected by every other state, because of the federal Constitution's full faith and credit clause that's there.

And so you see any other way to politically deal with this -- this differing philosophical struggle?

DOBSON: There is no other way. Some members of Congress who are trying to wimp out on this subject say, let's leave it to the states to decide.

Well, that's impossible, because you can't have 50 different definitions of marriage. You can't be married in Texas and not married in Connecticut. I mean, it will create absolute chaos.

And also, the courts will override what the states do anyway. And, you know, what happened in Massachusetts is not the will of the people. It's the will of three or four judges -- the vote was 4-3 -- who have imposed this on the people of Massachusetts and now it's going to influence the whole country.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Dr. Dobson, it's Alan Colmes. Good to have you back on the show. Welcome back, sir.

DOBSON: Thank you, Alan.

COLMES: Let me ask you a simple yes or no question. Marriage promotes stability and monogamy? Is that true or untrue?

DOBSON: It promotes those things when it is between one man and one woman, yes. It does not necessarily do that in other contexts.

I can tell you that we don't have to guess, Alan, as to what the impact of this will be, because in the Scandinavian countries where they've had de facto marriage between homosexuals since the 1990's, it's destroyed marriage there.

COLMES: Hold on for a second. If marriage, and I know you promote marriage and Focus on the Family, your group certainly talks about the sanctity of marriage.

If marriage promotes monogamy and stability for straight couples, why wouldn't it do the same thing for those of the same gender?

DOBSON: Well, it just doesn't. That is the scientific information. That is what I was trying to tell you. In Norway, there are places where 80 percent of the children are born out of wedlock. That's the result of it, and that's what will happen.

Also, once you cross that Rubicon, then there's no place to stop. Because if a judge can say two men and two women can marry, there is no reason on Earth why some judge some place is not going to say, this is not fair. Three women or three men, or five and two or five and five.

COLMES: We're not saying that to heterosexuals. You said born out of wedlock. How would gay marriage lead to more children being born out of wedlock?

DOBSON: Well, it would be, you know, adoption, and there's artificial insemination for lesbians and so on. But the issue is what you do with those children when you've got them? And what's the impact on them?

Are we by governmental decree going to decide that there will be fatherless and motherless children for the rest of their lives? That's wrong. Alan, that's just wrong.

COLMES: Wouldn't they have the opportunity -- not every child can be in a nuclear family with two kids. Is a child better off with a single parent or maybe a struggling financially mother or father or in a family with two parents of the same gender that may be able to afford them a better lifestyle? Which would be better for that child?

DOBSON: Well, that's the wrong question. The question is, what's best for children? And it's one man, one woman, one father, one mother, and that's what works best.

And when you start to change that definition, then marriage itself starts to quake, and then you have more children who are not raised in a healthy home environment.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2004 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2004 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C. and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.