is drafting spring of 2011 as the primary process was getting underway. even then, it was apparent that that field of presidential candidates were going to be the most outspoken anti-gay candidates ever. with rarely a word of criticism publicly spoken from mainstream republicans and the party establishment including those in congress about candidates like michele bachman or rick santorum

work rick perry and the long history of bigoted remarks. it seemed to me many of them, republican establishment were simply afraid to condemn such rhetoric and speak in favor of social tolerance. they were not just uninformed about gay rights issues but frankly scared to death of any discussion of them and that weighed into the hands of organized bigotry. what most analysts expect it was going to be another election about economic issues and replacing much of the legislation by the obama administration like the election in 2010 was hijacked by the value voters crowd and social issues were suddenly at the top of the republican list of priorities often getting the lion's share of attention in the endless debates in 2011. such as when a gay service number was booed when asking the

request and at one of the debates. in spite of the race that were pro game candidates and probe gay-rights candidates wrote -- ron paul, former governor of new mexico gary johnson and governor of utah john huntsman the general perception among most voters was and unfortunately is all the republican candidates were slavishly devoted to the religious and moral agenda of the christian right. of course the media love this attention to social issues like gay rights and similar issues because they love the delicious sound bites that candidates like michele bachman and rick perry and newt gingrich provided which allows by and large liberal media to spin their own ideas that all the republicans are anti-gay. michele bachman blamed existence of gay people for not one the two natural disasters, a hurricane and an earthquake.

newt gingrich who had two mistresses and three wives talk about the sanctity of traditional marriage. rick perry charge that president obama was conducting a war on religion simply because he allows gays to serve in the military but forbids children from praying or celebrating christmas. most people find such remarks and using they are designed to whip up hatred against gays and lesbians for these candidates, these particular candidates to grab a bigger chunk of christian right voters who make a large portion of the republican base. this rhetoric has been going on for years before the presidential race started. and when into overdrive with the advent of very controversial issue of same-sex marriage. was two years ago that i decided it was time to write a fact

based primer on gay-rights specifically targeted to right of center voters and hence the subtitle of the book. to do two things. to challenge the religious right on its own turf and show much of what they derisively called the gay agenda is actually consistent with fundamental republican and libertarian principles and to show center right voters who believe in social tolerance that not only are they not a voice in the wilderness but they represent a majority of rank-and-file republican voters. the book past three major things. the first one i just alluded to that many on the right don't understand properly understood gay-rights are in fact perfectly compatible with fundamental republican principles of limited government, individual rights and equal protection under the law. the essence of the classical liberal or libertarian

philosophy is simply one of live and let live. all people are created with certain inalienable rights. the government does not allow rights depending what religion you are or what economic class you are in, what your gender is or theoretically what your sexual orientation is. that is the way it was supposed to be. most libertarians get that and that is why they have a special obligation to teach fellow conservatives and right of center voters why gay and lesbian americans deserve the same rights as anybody else. the second theme is because of this constant rhetoric we often hear from the religious right most people have little understanding what rank-and-file republicans actually believe about gay issues. the conventional wisdom is all republicans hate gays. that they are opposed to gay rights and nothing could be further from the truth. what i discovered in researching

polling data on this topic is there is in fact a huge disconnect between conventional wisdom and the reality that a majority of rank-and-file republicans actually believe and support gay-rights. the reality is this. rank-and-file republicans support nearly all of the major planks in that, quote, gay agenda that i mentioned and that is one of the most interesting and important parts of this book. that is the message that needs to go out to all republicans and conservatives. the loud and hateful voices of the religious right leaders had intimidated and silenced most of those republicans who believe in social tolerance and their silence must now end. the fact is polling data going back decades shows consistent and growing support for

expanding gay-rights including relationship recognition by republicans and conservatives. a lot of polling data, let me pull out a few nuggets. polling by gallup going back ten years has consistently shown that 80% of americans which necessarily includes a majority of republicans favor a policy of employment nondiscrimination for gays and lesbians. virtually every other poll shows the same thing including one just last year by the center for american progress which shows 66% of republicans supporting that policy. republican support for expanding gay-rights doesn't end there. for at least five years, geordie of republicans have supported the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in our armed forces and a 2010 gallup poll showed 71% of conservatives

share that view. today according to a very recent national journal poll a majority of republicans are satisfied with the repeal of don't ask don't tell. that is normal in the republican party. relationship recognition for gay couples is the most contentious gay-rights issue for all right of center voters and even on this issue there is majority support according to most polls among republicans for marriage equality or civil unions. cbs news poll in 2010 showed 59% of republicans supported same-sex marriage or civil unions. a 2011 poll showed 51% in support. regarding support republican support for marriage equality a public research institute poll a year ago showed 37% of

republicans supporting that policy. in a washington post news poll washington post-abc news poll this past march showed 39% in favor of marriage equality. that same journal national poll i just mentioned show that only 37% of republicans support federal marriage bill. completely different from what the conventional wisdom is. these are pretty astounding numbers. the bottom line is this. the percentages may vary from pole to pole, all of them show a clear majority of republicans, rank-and-file republicans in favor of some legal recognition of gay couples in opposition to federal marriage amendment, in favor of open service in our armed forces and in favor of nondiscrimination. is this a message of social tolerance, part of the majority of republicans must be spread which is why i wrote this book.

i think it must be pounded into the heads of the republican establishment which continues to pander to the anti-gay groups and leaders. they are the ones who make the most noise. that is the key to their success. time for socially tolerant republicans to come out of the closet and they are doing so in greater numbers. the third major fema and the book is support for gay rights is the right thing to do and the politically smart thing to do. the voters that often decide elections after all their independence and the republican party has progressive precipitous decline from independence in presidential elections in the past 25 years. ronald reagan won by 2-1 majority and by 2008.

independents include libertarians come back in a big way in the 2010 election because it focused almost exclusively on economic issues. that focus is credited by most political analysts as a big republican victory that year. what republicans need to remember is this. they are overwhelmingly pro gay-rights. like other voters they don't want to hear anti-gay proposals from candidates because -- family members or colleague or friends or neighbors. on every major issue from repealing don't ask don't tell all the way up to providing equal benefits for same-sex couples, independent support gay-rights nearly as strongly as democrats. even on same-sex marriage a large majority of independents are in support. if republicans want to earn that support from independents they

need to win elections. i think they will simply have to change policies on gay-rights issues because independents reject the outspoken anti-gay policies promoted by the right wing and the anti-gay organizations that make up the republican base. let me turn to a couple of my favorite chapter is in the book. chapter 2 is in titles the religious right is wrong about the separation of church and state. i look at the belief of most social conservatives that this is a christian nation. i do not -- a nation of christians but a government and constitution based explicitly on biblical principles or values. this is what you hear from most social conservative leaders. yet we know the founders explicitly avoided including religious language in the constitution. none of the word got or bipolar jesus christ appear in the text.

that would be an odd thing indeed our founding fathers had in fact intended to run the government according to biblical principles. in fact most constitutional scholars acknowledge the founders were intent on building what thomas jefferson called the wall of separation between church and state even if that phrase doesn't appear in the constitution. james madison, one of the architect of the constitution, religious beliefs, quote, are not the object of civil government or under its jurisdiction. a few that is diametrically opposed to the agenda of most religious right leaders today. in the book by quote a variety of other founding fathers and their objections in the bible based states and some of their contemporaries actually criticized the founders for their explicit of mission of religious references in the

constitution. the rev. timothy white, hands offended providence because we formed our constitution with no acknowledgment of god and yet in spite of this overwhelming historical evidence the founders did indeed strive for the separation thomas jefferson spoke of most religious right leaders continue to mock the concept of a secular state. in their world of the 1915s based in memory for most americans, religious right extremists have become more shrill about the massive cultural changes the have taken place over the last two decades and will surely continue and the increasing contempt for social tolerance and personal liberty which are hallmarks of limited government they profess to believe in indicates they are no longer reliable partners or

allies for those republicans and conservatives who do believe in limited government and individual rights. the three lead stool symbolizing the republicans, traditional republican coalition made up of economic conservatives and national conservative than social conservatives is broken and it will and it should remain broken until social conservatives give up their efforts to remake america. another issue, huge under the radar controversy in the evangelical community in a section in glass houses of social conservatives. the evangelical community, when they pontificate about the sanctity of traditional marriage

not raised by the president of the southern baptist theological seminary. he wrote famously in 2010 that heterosexual divorce arms many more lives there will be touched by homosexual marriage. the real scandal is the fact that evangelical protestants divorce at rates as high as the more lives there will be touched by homosexual marriage. the real scandal is the fact that evangelical protestants divorce at rates as high as the rest of the public. this creates a significant credibility crisis. evangelicals rise to speak in defense of marriage. it couldn't be truer. this hypocrisy was labeled in a diamond of evangelical failure and monumental scandal in the evangelical community. professor mark smith at the university of washington pass an article in the political quarterly in which he detailed

widespread problem. showing 43% of protestant evangelicals divorce. higher than any other religious group and higher than the national average of 39% and as the professor points out rarely do the evangelicals promote the best provide legislative solutions to this problem. the force should be addressed within the church rather than through public policy. a starkly different approach than they propose to address other biblical transgressions like homosexuality. which many religious right leaders actually believe should be read criminalizes even after the supreme court ruling nullressying all state sodomy ls in 2003. this evangelical hypocrisy was acknowledged by the religious magazine christianity today. first made its remarkable remark. its editor wrote, quote, we

cannot very well argue for the sanctity of marriage as a crucial social institution while we blithely go about divorcing and approving of weiner generate it destabilizes marriage. sa have been perfect hngelocrit on this issue. in spite of this broad self examination gand hng on in the evangelical movement most of its leading spokeurean in the religious right groups that claim to represent them rarely talk about any topic other than homosexuality and gay marriage which theme even abortion as the main iteits agenda and you can see that res you go to their web site. it is clear that an increasing number of self identressied evangelicals and christians are changing their views about gay rights and marriage so a dialogue with some evangelicals is possible. theled010 american value survey

by the research institute show 41% of christian conservatives support recognition of same-sex couples. most recently unions but 16% and in august of 2010 by the state organization found that 44% of evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29 the so-called millenniacrea sevangeport same- marriage. these are big numbers. it is fair to say the religious right groevanges don't represen many even in their own in the christian right movement. also a section be careful what you wish for in which i remind religious voters they are not the only ones who believe in basing a government on biblical principles. there is a long history of liberal and les rigist religiou activism in the united states

based on a dressferent interpretation what the bible commands. the national council of churches has existed for 60 years and has advocated modern welfare state as an ethis imple, perfect ethi of service to others. the catholic left as a rich history of this activis modern environmental movement is fond of askintheyrhetorically wt would jesus drive. time christian principles to environmental activisits green economy so there is no shortage of political movements across the spectrum trying to run other people's lives. one thing they all have in common is justifying their respective agendas on the basis of biblical not this in my view is precisely why poe need to keep organized religion as far from the halls

of congress as possible. another fshororite chl soter i review is chapter 5, the tea party nation anti-gay. most of the media will automatically answer yes or hell mands and the reality is that t party is a more complex and diverse movement and many ot it is emphatically not a mirror image of the christian rigy an although there is of course overlap between the two. from its very begi 1ing as riger all the tea party has been mostly about economic issues. it was anger over those issues that sparked the movement to begin with and it was that relentless focus on economic issues and deliberate conscious shorand hdance of social issues was because of its great success in 2010. as written in the new york times in 2010, god, life and family

get litogne mention in tea part statements and manifestoes. the mowaso of the tea party papriiots, lativee coalition ofa party groups is fiscal ot government and free market. that focus is strategic she added. leaders think they can attract independent voters if they stay away froits were right. that is the rey to their success so far. what their views on gay issues? strikingly dressferent froits ot a few nuggets of the data. cbs new york times pts oe in 20 for example showed 60% of tea party members favored marriage equalitlif 4vey of theits civil unions. one would certainly not expect to find 57% in favor of legal

recognition of gay couples that ot the public religion research institute's 2010 american values survelif largest of its rind in surveying tea party members reported similar findings about tea party members. 53% in support of relationship recoof teition for gay couples. this large pockets of support, and no surnot research center found in its own polling of the tea party movement. only 32% of self identify it tea party members agree with enonservative christian movemen and 46% have no opinion of it or hshorennio heard of it and 11% oppose. striking confirmation that the religious rigy an as the tea pay are anything but synonymous. part of the reason for this

broader acceptance of scepial tolerance is a large number of libertarians in the tea party movement. i outlined three studies in the book showing that hars. party activists are libertarian. first is a more traditional conservative most people think make up the movement and they don't have been a -- an evangecg pts oicy analysis study entitle libertarian tea party. that inclpart es a wide on frea libertarian participation and social tts oerance that goes wi ity the top religious right organization ltrae the family ot family association campaigned the defense of marriage acty many tea party supporters support efforts to revise the tenth amendment and give states the freedom to decide matters such as marriage law.

many sevangeported federal dist court ruling in massachusewass o 2010 by jpart geen oseph toro t overturned section 3 of the defense of marriage act that forbment as the federal governm recognizing valid same-sex marriage. that decision on tenth amendment grounds was just recently upheld by a federal appeacrea court an headed for the supreme court. i hshore a section on chl soter and i urge you to read that on time so i won't go into that but it is a report card on all the major republican candidates who ran for prefirsdent deton alinge of their background statements and for many of them is far poorse. many did not get a passing

grade. the good news about the ot changing. not as fast as i or others groud like but it is. i detail a number of things in the b is ak in chapter 7 that s how it is evolving. the republican legislature voted to keep same-sex marriage this year. it had been legal. religious right activists tried to get a repeal and were confident they would get it repealed and most republicans in the state house rejected that.

so new hampshire continues to have same-sex marriage. republican officeholders. is about time. let me close by reading a quote from barry goldwater who john alluded to. and when your creatures get control of the wrong party and they are trying to do so it will be a terrible problem. they frighten me. politics and governing command compromise but christians believe they are acting in the name of god so they can't and won't compromise. the religious factions growing throughout our land are not using their political clout with wisdom. i am sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me that if i want to be a moral person i must

believe in a, b, c or d. to do they think they are? i will fight them every step of the way they try to dictate their moral convictions to americans in the name of conservatism. thank you. [applause] >> thanks for mentioning that study so everyone can keep their eye out for that. is a real eye opener and will be the most definitive study of that particular political movement. our commentator today does need no introduction but i will give him one anyway. you will know michael barron as senior political analyst at the washington examiner who has been over a decade of contributors to the fox news channel or also from his earlier career at u.s.

news and reader's digest at the highest levels of american politics and commentary. i would like to mention his books. his books are important and should be read today. remarkable british of people that inspired america's founding fathers. a book about the revolutn in britain which everyone should know more about. our country, the shaping of america from roosevelt to reagan. we live in historical times knowing more about that half and this book is an excellent introduction to the politics of that period. michael is the principal co-author of the almanac of american politics in the national journal, the leading commentary and when you read that book you wonder how does michael know all of that about every district in the country.

an amazing book that i recommend to you. michael barron. [applause] >> thank you for the kind introduction. you noted that you and david have written books at mature ages. your first book. my almanac for american politics of which i am co-author was written as long ago as the first edition appeared forty years ago. i like to point out it is highly unusual for the first edition of a book of this nature to be written by someone at the age of 4. but there we are. i come to you as a recovering liberal with my transformation having come at a later stage in life and david's. i am being asked in part because

one of my washington examiner columnist on same-sex marriage issue i made a point that i was in favor of same-sex marriage for the same reasons mentioned by jonathan in his book published a decade ago, gay marriage. i got a little feedback from my examiner readers on that and seem to be surprised. i felt i should disclose that. i am also recovering pollster. public opinion polling business from 1974 to 81. i found myself as issues of gay-rights came into politics. i see myself consistently wrong about where public opinion is going. during the 1992 campaign, when bill clinton came out in favor of openly gay people in the military this would inflict tremendous damage in that campaign. turned out i was totally wrong about that. it was a minor issue ignored by

the voters. i thought when he came into office and propose implementing gays in the military that he would have no political problem. in fact cause something of a firestorm in part because people said that shouldn't be your first order or one of your first orders of business so i was consistently wrong about that. i have been wrong in both directions on this issue. it is one where i don't seem to understand the american people and where they're going. having not written about it substantially since. in the 20 years since i was wrong in both directions we have had a huge change in public opinion on this issue and probably on gay-rights related issues the biggest change or at least one of the biggest changes i have witnessed in my lifetime and growing up in the america of the 1915s and 60s this was known

as an era of cultural uniformity. we had those unifying experiences of the great depression and particularly of world war ii where sixteen million men in military service in a country of 130 one million. it was a time when everybody was supposed to be average and normal and so forth and any breach of that was considered to be a big problem. it was a time when homosexuality was really taboo and was ridiculed. i am not familiar in any detail with the scholarship of some people who have written about attitudes towards gays but my impression from such reading as i have done from other surveys of american history is that

postwar period was probably a time when americans were more hostile to homosexuality and what they called deviants than at other points in our history. we were really -- went through an unusual period of lack of cultural diversity or at least sanctions against it. people like robert kennedy ridiculing gore vidal for being homosexual. this was standard. polite company, gay jokes, disparaging jokes were fine in polite company at every stage and nobody objected to them in a serious way. david lamb did a service by illustrating a big change in public opinion. we are hugely large percentage

of americans are now accepting gay people land gay-rights and bayous the term gay and not going to gay and lesbian or whatever just for purposes to be concise. gay writes in a way that simply was unthinkable in the america in which i grew up. i never expected to see this happen. we have considerable age break on this. this is the issue i have observed over 40 or 50 years of observing polling data in which there is a bigger difference between age groups and to summarized if you have an opinion on same-sex marriage the over 65 group their basic attitude could be summarized as if you ask their basic attitude

was -- yes. seen as an controversial. what this means and david provided the data that this cuts across the lines of the partisan lines so both parties are diverse in their constituencies, different on this and we saw an illustration of this recently when president obama kind of wrong footed himself by announcing he had devolved sufficiently in favor of same-sex marriage the day after voters in north carolina state he carried less time and carried 69 against it. backers of gay marriage may have thought it would have been nice if the president came out for this before north carolina voted this referendum rather than after but the president was trying to balance two constituencies both of whom voted for him heavily and turned

out heavily in 2008 but whose turnout is uncertain and volatile and he wants to ensure their turnout which is young voters who as i said are heavily in favor of same-sex marriage by margins of 2-1 or better and black voters who have been against same-sex marriage and in the exit polling california referendum in 2008 we saw white voters and asian voters came out for same-sex marriage against proposition 8 by 51-49 margin. hispanics voted against same-sex marriage by a 51-49% margin. it is chugging ahead at winning the election at this point and black voters voted 70-30 against same-sex marriage. those numbers are probably different among black voters at president obama's endorsement of the issue has probably changed some minds but he did take time

to do conference calls with black preachers and there is a lot of hope it's in black churches where the preachers are very much against same-sex marriage and i think there is a resentment on the part of some black voters and leaders when supporters or advocates for same-sex marriage analogize their cause to the civil-rights revolution. blacks will say the treatment -- homosexuals haven't been slaves. there's a difference in experience and that is a strong argument. is an effective one with some black voters. the president was in the position of the old-time politician who said some of my friends are for the bill and some are against the bill and always with my friends. the north carolina referendum got him enough flak that he decided from many of his money

givers who were strong backers of same-sex marriage that he should change his position and the washington post made note that a quarter of his bunglers are gay. some gay people this is not a front range issue and for some non gay people it is so i don't think we should assume people's sexual orientation automatically determine their position on this issue or the strength of their conviction search for the priority they give that but that is for people to determine for themselves but it is a problem. on the republican side polling has shown and perhaps david will contradict me that two thirds of republican voters are against same-sex marriage but a quarter are for. perhaps higher. republicans have -- republicans have a split constituency on

this as well. obviously the plurality par for against same-sex marriage but you have also got plurality from majorities for some form of civil union that are in favor of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and so forth. those are positions that are back now. particularly for young people in this room this is hugely different from the america not only of the 1915s and 60s but the 1970s and 1980s. this is a big change. this -- these issues are simply not issues before.

david was actively in proposition 13 holding down property taxes in 1978. there was another referendum on the ballot that year. the republican assemblyman from orange county fact an amendment that showed -- banned gay people from being teachers and required firing of teachers identified as homosexual and that seemed to be getting toward majority support in california. not as liberal a state that as it is now. interestingly a former governor was persuaded to come out against this and to spot for it against it. ronald reagan in 1978 which may have made the difference in defeating the briggs amendment at the polls but that was a daring position. the opponents of the briggs amendment went to governor reagan and had a meeting and reagan had known many gay people

being in the entertainment business and had friends who were and it was not just to count people lot of their jobs because of their sexual orientation and he took that stand publicly even though he was preparing to be a republican candidate for the republican nomination once again. that says something good about president reagan or governor reagan as he was then but also says the fact that he came off of his position was considered a surprise. was noteworthy. was vote changing because in the environment we were in we were -- that was worthy of comment and something most people wouldn't have the expected. these issues simply weren't issues. if you could go back in time and talk to voters and politicians in the 70s and 80s where are you on same-sex marriage response would of been what you talking about? and nobody was out there

advocating it in any way. i would take issue here with david's statement the republican field of candidates was the most anti-gay field in history. i would argue the field of republican and democratic candidates by the standards of today's issues in all these years was more anti-gay than republicans because none of them were for same-sex marriage or civil unions. most of them if you brought up the issue saying you should criminalize homosexual behavior, sure. that was true of democrats and republicans. like the abortion issue but even longer same sex homosexual behavior was an issue of criminal law more than it was anything else and the key question was how much you wanted to criminalize it and what

degree and what penalties should be. it is an issue today that is very different from what it was in the past. my own view is we are going to move towards a nation of more acceptance of same-sex marriage. when you have young people taking a libertarian stand on a cultural issue and old people taking a strong stand against it the question becomes will the young people have the same attitude as they grow up and get older. california had initiatives on marijuana in 1972. it was defeated 66-34 but younger voters were in favor of it. when those voters change their minds as the years went on you did not have any increase in support for legalization of marijuana for california for several decades until the marijuana advocates came up with the idea of medical marijuana and we are now legalizing

marijuana in some cases but those people change their minds as they grew up and had children and decided it wasn't a great idea. this issue is one where people are going to continue to take the stand they are taking that support for same-sex marriage will persist in this millennial generation and inevitably be a larger part of the election of elector world politics in years hence and the current over 65 generation will be a smaller part of its bikes or politics. i think support will continue. you may want to take into account by bad record at predicting trends in public opinion on gay-rights issues when you are assessing this. i will not put myself forward as an expert. let me conclude with a couple statements about this issue

generally. david pointed rightly to the fact the prevalence of divorce among many opponents of same-sex marriage or the constituencies on whose behalf they tend to speak, they believe they speak, there is some truth to that. in my article last august in the washington examiner this issue i made a point that i am concerned about threats to the family. i share the views of people in the family research council and so forth about things. i think the lack of two parents is a great handicap to children. that is statistically valid factor but i am also aware of the number of gays in america's relatively small, the best evidence is the presidential election every four years. the last three elections you

fill out yourself. press the button on your phone or anything else and deposit the paper in a box and it is a very anonymous questionnaire so if you are fearful of stigma or whatever else you have no motive to hide your actual status or believe. 3% has been the number in the last three elections. interestingly is the only demographic group in which john mccain got a higher percentage of the vote than george w. bush in 2004. it went on something like 23% to 25% but that was a national trend. also evidence that gave voters are not monolithic we won party voters as black americans tend to be. my argument that i made was i am concerned about damage to the family but it seems to me there's less damage from a few people who want to get married than there is from the much

larger number of people who get divorced or have children without getting married in the first place. that is a pretty strong argument and david jamaican are given similar if not identical to that in his book. let me conclude with distinguishing my attitude if i may toward religious right leaders and outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage from david's attitude. he used the term hateful to characterize some people. you confined people who hate gay people. the iranian capital punishment for homosexuals for people engaged in homosexual sex. the average issue are taking the

issue they do. the view that same-sex marriage should be legal and we should change the status of marriage from what it has been for many years think that it would be good for people generally and there's a strong argument but people who are against it feel their position is good for people generally and they can say to us the burden of proof is those who want to change a long and enduring institution. the case that david is making has persuaded me but i do want to say that i respect the good faith of many -- large majority of americans who take an opposite view. thank you. [applause] >> now it is time for questions and i am going to exercise the

power of the chair to ask david the first question which is carried down from his presentation. i wanted to hear the chapter about the candidates. the republican party doesn't have a scorecard. they don't have a candidate. they have a candidate so mitt romney. what is your story on him? and also to get us moving toward the future. do you have any views about potential vice-presidential candidates like mike santorum or newt gingrich or candidate for the vice presidency or other people you have looked into or have a sense of their views? >> i was afraid you were going to ask about governor romney. in that chapter 8, the scorecard, i go back and review

public statements and mitt romney's case goes back to the famous 1993 war so pro gay statements and pledges when he was running against ted kennedy. all his religious right opponents also went back to those statements and were convinced he was still a closet pro gay candidate. in my view he is a tough nut to crack. when he started running for president even before he left the office of governor he opposed same-sex marriage when it blossomed in massachusetts with the supreme court decision. he supported banning it. he ultimately accepted it because he had no choice really although others were advocating

to go to the ramparts. after he left office he made a few comments about supporting employment nondiscrimination although not at the federal level but the state level. he also tailors his remarks to the audience to which he is speaking. you saw him during last year in front of the family leader or at a value summit write him in d.c.. he would say all the right things and yet when he would go to new hampshire he openly talked about supporting domestic partnerships or a certain kind of package of rights for gay couples and i am sure he did his best to keep that as below the radar as possible because he was constantly being attacked by rick santorum and others for any

hint of pro tolerance. he got a d in my report card. may have gotten a d plus because of the partnership of statements in new hampshire. >> what was the time line on the republican legislature's rejection of attempts -- >> earlier this year possibly in march or so. >> after the new hampshire primary. >> right. >> a simmering issue because the democratic legislature was one of the few states that has legislature. >> a number of them were asked about it and i believe romney was asked about it and gave his usual talking point about traditional marriage and supporting the federal marriage amendments which he does. i don't think his views are going to get much better on this.

ironically, i argued in an op-ed i am working on that obama's coming out for same-sex marriage is a plus for him. it gives him some opportunities i doubt he will take advantage of but they are there. there was always a question of the intensity of support by religious right voters. most of them have finally warmed up to him simply because he is the candidate or will be. when obama came out and said he explicitly supported same-sex marriage that really sent them over the edge. they were already angry about doma decisions on his part. most of those voters are anybody but obama of voters and that affords romney the ability to come out and try to reach out to

moderate and independent and women voters who would like to see him say for example a pledge to support employment nondiscrimination for federal employees. something bush and clinton and obama all did. support a tax equity act that would allow gay couples the same tax privileges on health insurance benefits. he has evolve on any other issue and the federal marriage amendment and figure out being for federalism and the tenth amendment are good republican positions. that said i don't think he is going to do any of that. i am going to take a wait and see attitude on his part. >> the vice president -- >> i love criticizing him. i would vote for him in a heartbeat. >> that is not an endorsement by the cato institute. >> the governor will be the

keynote speaker it was announced that the republican convention so that is a good thing. i don't have any preferences and unfortunately even if they have more socially tolerant views on these issues they disavow them once they become a candidate. >> let's ask audience the questions they have. please wait to show your call. wait for the microphone is the crucial thing because everyone in the room has to hear you and we are going out over the internet or television and please announce your name and if you like your affiliation and i would also say please make sure that your question is in the form of a question. thank you. if you want to direct it to one of the other of our panelists. let's start with the gentleman in the middle. we will try to get to everyone.

>> my name is steve hank and i have a question of whether the position of trying to promote gay-rights so to speak is being done on this left/right continue one too much which to me means i either like gays or dislike gays and the better argument is pure libertarian argument which is the essentially live and let live which means i don't have to like gays. i don't have to associate -- i don't want to associate with gays. that is not my personal belief but if that is somebody's personal belief they can still take the libertarian attitudes i am going to let them live the way they want to live because i want to live the way i want to live and therefore whether i

want to associate with them or to teach my children, i still would afford them the same rights which is the pure libertarian and my question is aren't you guys too much looking at this from a sort of left/right continuum as opposed to what i would say is a libertarian continuum which doesn't -- >> thank you. >> you just distilled libertarian position pretty well but i don't think that contradicts the battle lines that we have. i certainly don't and i don't think most gay-rights leaders say gay-rights means you have to have a gay as the best friend.

they are talking about political rights. traditional rights that the gay movement has talked about from don't ask don't tell, public employment, nondiscrimination, being allowed to work for the federal government instead of being kicked out mike they were in the 50s and 60s. a term of convenience for equal rights, equal legal rights for gay and lesbian americans. it does not imply you have to personally like gay people. >> i would add to that, large part of the vast change in public opinion has become -- has happened because people have come out as gay and non gay people know a lot more gay people as they than they did 20 years ago and they don't

necessarily look like the most outrageous person at a local tv search and in a gay pride parade. they are your friend or relative or neighbor who is okay. that greatly fortified politically the case against discrimination even though by the government in various ways, shapes and forms and an abstract point of view the argument should be as strong whether you knew gay people are not. >> latest polls show 60% of americans say they know a gay person. >> it would be 20% 20 years ago. >> in the 50s 06 ins no one would say that. there has been this huge cultural shift that has driven this expanded support for gay rights. >> in the 50s they did know some people they were gay. they just didn't know they were gay. >> back to your question, that

is what freedom means. i don't have to like you. i don't have to associate with you. i don't have to believe what you believe but if you live in a free society i have to grant you the same rights that i have. >> kathleen, cato institute. the difficulty i have conversing with religious conservatives is once the government recognizes same-sex marriage and other gay rights the government then has to enforce that recognition to the general populace. you see cases like christian photographer in new mexico who was forced to -- >> photograph a wedding. the thirteenth amendment takes care of that. >> the case in new jersey where you have a church that was denied tax-exempt status because they refused to rant and gazebo to same-sex couples or recent case in new york which is a

catholic hospital currently because they don't recognize certain health benefits. >> i totally understand those positions and agree with the religious right conservative on them. when they talk about issues like that it is bait and switch. why would you talk about a photographer when you are talking about same-sex marriage. comparing apples and oranges. ..

>> let me disagree slightly on that. you know, there are exceptions for cases personally close to you. if you have an apartment in your house, you are not necessarily covered by them. and so forth. you have the right to discriminate against or not rent to someone your basement apartment for what other reason for those reasons prohibited by law. and i think that, in these cases, you know, should the clergyman be required to propitiate marriages they disapprove of -- of course not, that the free exercise of religion. the supreme court was unanimous on the law on that. on that january case involving who was a minister.

in new mexico thing is an obvious outrage. against the 13th amendment to require someone to photograph a wedding and he doesn't want to do so. >> yeah, absolutely. whenever they have same-sex marriage, they have bent over backwards to accommodate churches from participating, and they absolutely should. if a church doesn't want to allow gay people to be members members or walk through stores, that's fine by me. but do not talk about and say that i'm going to prevent legal equality for gays and lesbians because sometime in the future, someone could pass a law that says, you know, this lady has to photograph gay weddings. those are separate issues and should be treated separately. >> just to be clear, the 13th amendment ended slavery. >> the woman in purple, right on the aisle.

>> hello, my name is emily. i found the discussion with social conservatives is that marriage is between a man and woman. i think one of the issues is in regards to it being such an emotional argument. it becomes too personal. you think maybe it would be better to argue from a logical standpoint -- that it grants religious freedoms to married couples of all kinds and do think that if you argue it that way, people may view perspective to viewing it as something different overall and a legitimate right that all people deserve? >> well, i think the important thing, i talk about this in the book, and many others have done so. you have to make the distinction between religious and ceremonial

parts that you talk about. and the legal and the civil power. being religious and having a wedding in a church is neither sufficient nor necessary to have illegal marriage. only that civil portion of marriage as the legal applications. and that is getting a marriage license, which you can consummate by going to a justice of the peace. it doesn't say anything about religion, belief in god, having children, i think that is a fundamental mistake that a lot of proponents of same-sex marriage make. they think of marriage they think of their religious values and what they were taught in all that. and i get all that. but they are than crossing the line because of their personal views.

they are then crossing the line from the religious aspect of marriage over to the civil by saying because my religion says that you are not a god-fearing person or a bad person, but you don't get access to the same legal contracts and rights that i do. you know, that is a common mistake. it has certainly been pointed out enough to social conservatives and religious people. unfortunately, the private religious values usually trump their alleged belief in the government. >> you know, when you're talking about marriage, sexuality, you're talking about things that are very personal and important people and they are going to have strong feelings about these things they bet their lives on the doing things a certain way and many evangelical groups are very regretful, people who have similar beliefs behaving in ways

that they consider wrong. so you're going to have strong feelings. it is one of the reasons why i urge you to conduct this debate in a way that others take a different view. and the fact that they have and are positively motivated, even the one disagrees with them. we have less of an intersection into the state and church in some countries. family came over and we visited a church, a live city which are not pronounced with a proper accent. it was a saturday. there was a wedding ceremony. some very wild west volusia law family there. the priest was officiating.

so the priest comes down, a court comes in right there in the church, and, you know, have them sign the registry and so forth. and my parents were staunch atheists and very opposed to religion, they were appalled at the idea that a government person coming into a church, just physically being there and performing official duties in a church setting, that is their view and mine of violation of religion without state supervision, thank you very much. different countries have different attitudes. >> gentleman please continue. >> my name is stephen. if nixon could go to beijing, why can't mitt romney go to dupont circle?

>> maybe you can. [laughter] >> i take it that is a rhetorical question. you mentioned the family marriage amendment, which is obviously a dead duck and will never pass congress and it will never pass 38 legislatures. i object the presidential candidates on constitutional amendments being questioned by them. the president doesn't have any role under the constitution and amendments. except a citizen of the state a state you can vote for members of congress and the legislature. he's in the same position as the rest of us except i don't hope for members of congress or state legislature. but it's not a presidential role to pass constitutional amendments. ask your state legislator. >> that is why i think he could

just as easily sit on that issue. it is kind of disingenuous to say that i'm going to work for a federal marriage amendment. >> but we have the balance budget amendment,. >> they talk about everything, including things that violate the laws of physics so we can't really expect that. the gentleman here on the right. >> thank you. i think my question is very similar. mr. lambeau, how do you feel and how do you think the republican party feels and how do libertarians feel about a woman's right to choose. i realize that we have the question of a life involved. which we don't have a good day marriage issue.

what is your review on that and how you compare do you compare that with your review on gay marriage? >> i hesitate in many ways, in most ways, a different topic, i hesitate to give my view on it. but even libertarians are split on that issue. in that way it is a very unique political issue. it complicates the whole issue. i am pro-choice. of course, opponents will say that he's not a real conservative but that is my view on it. i think my view is consistent with the traditional libertarian view about personal rights, control over your body.

i fully respect the position and views of people that are pro-life. i do agree with conservatives at the government should fund it or subsidize it in any way. my pro-choice liberal friends don't like that about my view. >> some of the younger generation don't like numbers and such -- they are more in favor of her stripping abortions that we slightly than their elders i think there re a number of reasons for that. sonograms, technology, it becomes harder to argue that it is not in some sense a human

life. the other factor, everyone born in america 30 years or younger, could've had his or her life ended by an inexpensive abortion. it seems to me they reflect on that, they might not thing so well of abortion. that's just speculation. >> the woman here in row four. >> thank you. i'm an intern here at the cato institute. there are two kinds of arguments. one is that the federal definition of marriage should be amended to include more people. the other is that rather than constantly renegotiating the exclusion criteria for marriage, we should discount of abolish his federal monopolies on the institution and just let people

do what they want. i'm curious why we we're focusing so much on the former framework rather than the latter. >> because we have something called the defense of marriage act. if that were repealed from the federal government would essentially not be involved in that issue. but opponents want to give the feds involved even more. michael is right it is a really important position on the part of people like the american family association, the family research council. and the usual suspects, so to speak. i don't do that lightly. that's another reason why i think it is gratuitous or various republican candidates so

if you want to disengage the federal government from this issue, repeal doma. >> then you have an interesting situation which is that same-sex couples who have marriage is recognized under state law, where the marriage was on where they live, with which it is, you know, would qualify for things like the marital deduction and your incomes are merged. it would be an incentive for other states to change their laws and the opponents would say it's unfair. that is how we got the marital deduction in the first place. because in the post- world post

world war ii. matt, they were usually able to live off of one income of a husband. not many women were working into a lower marginal tax rate, at which point congress stepped in there are some that believe in the federal marriage federal marriage amendment. basically saying that marriage is a fundamental right. and it should be a by constitutional amendment granted or extended to all couples in all states. >> and we make it a supreme court decision saying as much, right? >> we might. certainly that amendment process would be even more impossible and more difficult than the anti-marriage federal marriage amendment that has lost several rounds in trying to get that story. >> one more question.

a gentleman in the middle. >> hello, i'm from the american enterprise institute and i would like to ask you despite your polling numbers, there is a good way to go forward. should we focus on changing greater behavior? >> certainly, the latter. a person with moral questions, certainly the latter for longevity would be preferable. when the courts overturn jim crow laws, and that's a good

analogy, there are certain inalienable rights, as we know, and i think the courts certainly have a proper role in affirming those rights. we all know that courts can go overboard and judges can make all kinds of decisions based on their personal preferences instead of the constitution or its general presumption of liberty that many people believe that extends to people. so when the legislature doesn't own a proper grounds, that is just as valid as if the people vote on it. >> i have to say, in conclusion, i am dubious about the court case. we will see the ninth circuit, which is basically ruled that there is a right to same-sex marriages and is informed by the supreme court, which are may well be or reversed as it often is.

it's possible to do this by legislature. that means that won't it won't happen everywhere. in states like alabama and mississippi were 70% of people are either black or white or evangelical protestant. they're not going to pass same-sex marriage in the way legislature anytime soon. i can tell you that. on the other hand, we have seen legislatures in new hampshire and connecticut and new york, we have seen in past same-sex marriage. we saw that survived the political process and will be endorsed by voters after being imposed by the court, we have seen it come close in new jersey where governor chris christie wants a referendum. as the millennialist become a larger part of the electorate, i think in time we are going to see more acceptance. california, the vote was 52-48. if it came up again, california would vote in favor. so far it has only been the opponents that want to bring it to a referendum. i think it may be time in some

states are proponents to bring a referendum. and take their chances. >> take their chances with voters. that's going to be a step-by-step process. let me just conclude by noting that i am at the american press institute. i'm always happy to be here at the cato institute. thank you very much. >> i would like to thank david and michael preparing today. the book today has been fundamental freedom by david lampo. it is available from your favorite bookseller. i'm sure david will be happy to sign any copy that you might want to talk to you about the book. you will have an opportunity to do so and to meet the author. we're going to go upstairs and have lunch as part of our cato forum. lunches upstairs in the george

eger conference center. have to go up the stairs. i could say also that restrooms on the second floor. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> every weekend, booktv offers 40 hours of programming focus on nonfiction authors and books. watch it here on c-span2. >> the factors in our world when it comes to thinking about writing about politics than national security of the state, about what used to be called foreign policy but is now it is

very small. >> we need people willing to try to step back, trying to make the raid out of the massive trees. my book, "the united states of fear", is israeli woman died in such a room could produce in the year a year of reading, writing, talking, and doing my best to consider the absurdities that are accepted as ordinary reality. as a those of you know, i like to have pieces at the site, despite what everybody thinks about brevity and attention span of the internet. i'm going to read you two pieces from the book. both on the shorter side. the first, as you'll see, is really my thoughts about guys. i wrote it back in 2010 for the military was out of iraq.

for it was utterly clear the floodgates have been opened so wide that what might be called the politics of the richer america would certainly become american politics. i called it being a critic. all the world is as interested in march of 2010, i wrote about a group of pundits and warrior journalists, eager not to sue u.s. military leave iraq. that appeared on the op-ed page of the "los angeles times" and then began wandering the media world. one of its stops, curiously enough was the military newspaper, stars and stripes. this e-mail respons read your article in stars and stripes. when was the last time you visited iraq? a critique and 15 well-chosen world. his point, i was then a

65-year-old guy who had never been anywhere near iraq and undoubtably never would have. possibly more than once and disagreed with my assessment. this is not to be taken lightly. what, after all, do i know about iraq? only the reporting i've been able to read. the analysis found lots of experts, on the other hand, even from thousands of miles away, i was one of many who could see enough by early 2003 to go into the streets and demonstrate against an onrushing disaster that a lot of people theoretically are far more as a cakewalk or the new century. it is true that i have never strolled down a street in baghdad. and that is a deficit if you

want to write about the american experience in iraq. it's also true that i haven't spent hours sipping tea or set foot on even one of the pentagon's private contractors that they built in the country. nor did that stop me from writing regularly about what i called and so-called, when most of the people who visited those places didn't consider places with multiple bus lines, familiar fast food franchises, and who knows what else to be noteworthy structures on the iraqi landscape. >> i'm certainly no expert on shiites and sunnis. on the other hand, it does occur to me that american pundits, have spent time in iraq released

in the american version of the same, couldn't have arrived at a dumber conclusion in the last several years. his valuables may be for great reporters. sometimes being far away, not just from iraq, but from washington and all the thinking that goes on there from the vividly claustrophobic world of american global policymaking, it has its advantages. sometimes being out of it, experientially speaking, allows you to open your eyes and take in the larger shape of things, which is often the obvious, even a little noted. i can't help thinking about a friend of mine up close and personal take on u.s. military commanders in afghanistan is that they were trapped in an american-made box and capable of seeing beyond its boundaries. that is seeing afghanistan. i have no doubt that it is

generally something to be desired. but if you take the personal bonds with you that often hardly matter where you are. thinking about my stars & stripes questions, who's not into that. it's not as where you go, or how you see what's there and know what is important and we see that matters. which means that sometimes come you can actually see more by going nowhere at all. an iraqi tragedy. all evidence indicates that the first thing that they can deceive themselves. they see the world is a stage and the countries that we have invaded or occupied, pakistan, somalia, yemen, we conduct a war in american drama. as wired military commanders and top officials like robert gates

and james jones continue to call unconsciously putting an iraqi or afghan phase on whichever war was being discussed. that is to follow the image to the logical conclusion, putting on an iraqi or afghan mask on her face. however inconveniently or as embarrassing as american. >> tumultuous online at booktv.org. >> two full days of live coverage of the national book festival. next weekend on booktv on c-span2. it takes place on the national mall in washington dc. go to booktv.org typical schedule. >> up next, jefferson morley recounts the first race riot in washington dc which took place in august of 1835 and the two subsequent criminal trials that were tried by th