[Blitzer:] More now on our top story. Gay rights supporters and backers of state sodomy laws are reacting passionately to today's Supreme Court ruling. An historic ruling by all accounts. Lets here from both sides. Representative Barney Frank is a Massachusetts democrat, the first openly gay member of Congress. Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Family Institute. Thanks to both of you for joining us. Congressman Frank, let me begin with you. You've been a champion of gay rights for many, many years. In the scheme of things, how big is this Supreme Court decision today for the homosexual community?
[Rep. Barney Frank , Massachusetts:] Well, it's very big, but it's not just for the homosexual community. The five-member majority of the court said that you could not have laws that interfere with anybody's right to private intimate conduct. Most of the states that had laws of this sort banned both heterosexual and homosexual conduct. Texas was in the minority that deals only with gay rights. But the five-member majority said what I wouldn't have thought was controversial today, if two adults, mutually consenting adults, are having sexual relations in their own home, behind closed doors, we don't want the police breaking in, arresting them and charging them. And the Supreme Court said, that's really not what the government is supposed to do. I think it's a great step forward for liberty in general, and since these laws have often been used particularly against gay people I was very pleased by that. And I noticed, by the way, that even Clarence Thomas, who is one of the three who said it was constitutional, made a point of saying that he thought the law was very silly, and that if he was a member of the legislature he would have voted against it. So you had 7 of the 9 justices, including some of the more conservative ones, saying that it really isn't the business of government to regulating private sexual conduct in the privacy of people's homes.
[Blitzer:] Clearly Robert Knight, there's been a sea change in public attitudes toward gay rights over the years, certainly reflected in today's Supreme Court decision.
[Robert Knight, Culture And Family Institute:] There's been a relentless pounding of gay propaganda on television. It's practically ceaseless. But really, this case wasn't about the police invading bedrooms. That's not what was happening out there. It's as if the court never heard of the fourth amendment, in which we are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. You have to have reasonable cause before you go into a home. And the court admitted, in Justice Kennedy's opinion, that it really wasn't happening. Police weren't going into homes. So it was about imposing the justice's vision of morality or immorality, as you will, on the people of Texas, saying, you have no right to regulate morality in your communities anymore. And I think Congressman Frank was correct in saying that you know, any two consenting adults. Well, what about a prostitute and her client? What about incest participants? Eventually this will challenge all sex laws, and, you know...
[Blitzer:] All right...
[Knight:] If you take it even further, it is...
[Blitzer:] ... let me let Congressman...
[Knight:] ... going to go after the marriage law, and that...
[Frank:] Well, there are just two I'm impressed at how many inaccuracies he gets into one short statement. As a matter of fact, this was about the police going into the bedrooms. I don't understand how he can set that.
[Knight:] Yes, it was a set-up case, and you know it.
[Frank:] May I continue, please? The fact is that you were simply wrong. The police went into the bedroom, arrested those people, charged them, and they were convicted. You say it was a set-up. The police could have walked in and backed out and said, hey, mistake. The police, here, entered the bedroom and arrested the people. George Bush said that was fine. They were convicted. So this was a case of police coming in and not just coming in but arresting these people.
[Knight:] Yes, and how often does that happen, Congressman, around the United States?
[Frank:] I hope it will happen never, thanks to the Supreme...
[Knight:] Well, it doesn't happen. That's why...
[Franks:] Excuse me...
[Blitzer:] Hold on one second.
[Franks:] I am not going to be heckled and filibustered by this bigot.
[Knight:] Oh...
[Frank:] If I get a chance to talk...
[Knight:] That's what we can expect...
[Blitzer:] One at a time...
[Frank:] You try to override me when I'm talking. That's exactly what you can expect. The days of
[Knight:] I hope you listen carefully, America. That's what the
[Blitzer:] Wait a minute. Bob. Robert Knight... Hold on one second. Hold on. Robert Knight, lets listen, this was a case. Congressman Frank is absolutely right. The police did invade the bedroom of these two men. They happened to have been engaged in homosexual sex, and they arrested them. How can you dispute that?
[Knight:] Yeah, and they continued engaging in the sex even after the officers entered, which makes me suspect this was a set-up to just to challenge the law. And it doesn't really have any relation to reality out there. Even Justice Kennedy said this isn't how the law has been enforced normally. OK? So it was really about getting rid of the whole idea.
[Frank:] May I respond to his second mistake.
[Blitzer:] Let's let Congressman Franks respond. Go ahead, Congressman Frank.
[Frank:] His second mistake, and of course, it is what Santorum said, and what Scalia said. Let's hold these people to their prediction. They really would like it to be illegal for people to engage in sex of which they don't approve. But they are afraid to say that, because they know it is politically unpopular. So they say, if this is allowed it will lead to all these other terrible things. Well, as a matter of fact, since 1980, 10 state Supreme Courts have ruled exactly as the U.S. Supreme Court did today, and in none of those states since 1980, has it led to legalizing bigamy, bestiality, incest, et cetera. There are an ability by people to make distinctions. And I would let's test him at his word. He says this is going to lead to the courts then mandating that all these other sexual practices have to be allowed. I'm predicting that that's not true. Wolf, have us back on the show a year from now because I want him to have to admit how wrong he was.
[Knight:] I hope you are right, Congressman. But I fear you are wrong because...
[Frank:] Well, for 23 years I've been right.
[Knight:] Wait a minute. You have got to let me speak, too. If the concept that limits the government in this case, is merely consent and privacy, really you can't have any laws standing up against prostitution and things like that because you're just talking about privacy and consent. So I don't see why they wouldn't...
[Frank:] Well, I'll tell you why.
[Knight:] ... come under a challenge.
[Frank:] In the first place, you're just factually wrong and don't know what the facts are. Since 1980, as I said, 10 state Supreme Courts have said this. Courts have often said that where there is money involved it's different than if it's purely consent. You may not agree with that, but the notion that transactions where no money change hands are exactly the same as transactions where money changes hands, people can play gin rummy and it's not illegal. If they play for $5,000, it might be illegal. So, the presence of money can make a difference. The notion that...
[Knight:] It makes a difference, but in terms of...
[Frank:] Well, but the fact is, in 20 years 23 years, not one state Supreme Court which decided that there was privacy, has followed the path that you've predicted.
[Knight:] Well, just don't hold your breath. It will happen because there really is no holding it back.
[Frank:] Well, why hasn't it happened in 23 years in any state?
[Knight:] Well, there hasn't been time yet. Why didn't...
[Frank:] Twenty-three years isn't enough time?
[Knight:] Why didn't
[Frank:] Because you needed new justices. Because you need to have people...
[Knight:] Yes. You need justices that don't care about the rule of law any more and want to impose their views on the rest of the country.
[Blitzer:] Let me interrupt both of you, and get your reaction to this question. Barney Frank, to you first. Will this open the door potentially for gay marriages in the United States?
[Frank:] No, I think that we ought to be recognizing the relationships of gay and lesbian people, but this decision isn't going to lead to that. I will make this very simple prediction. We can come back in a year and see. There will not be any federal court with this decision saying marriage is allowed. Marriage is a different thing than private consenting sex. And the courts and again, in 1980, 10 let's be clear about this. Ten state Supreme Courts made this essentially this decision beginning in 1980. None of them have gone farther. I would like to go farther into other areas like marriage, but it's going to take affirmative legislative action to do it.
[Knight:] I'm sure they're waiting for the Supreme Court to do something this radical. Marriage is protected in the law because it's a unique institution. It's fundamental to society. It is the union of men and women, okay? But if the only premise is that it's consensual sex, then even distinctions between marital and nonmarital sex are not going to hold up for long. And you know that, Congressman. The plaintiff in this case himself said that that this morning.
[Frank:] I know that in 23 years you've been proven wrong by 10 state Supreme Courts.
[Blitzer:] Unfortunately...
[Knight:] Well, I hope they continue to refrain from judicial activism as the court has done today.
[Blitzer:] Unfortunately we have to leave it right there. Robert Knight, Congressman Barney Frank. To you, Congressman Frank, I know you've been a champion on this issue for many years. Congratulations to you. Thanks very much to both of you for joining us. Of course we would love to hear directly from you. Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling that strikes down antisodomy laws? Log on to cnn.comwolf, and we'll get those results later. Take off your shoes and open your bags. You better do it. That's what passengers, of course, go through at the airport. But how about employees? Are they getting under the security radar? We'll take a closer look. And fire along the Rio Grande. We'll go live to Albuquerque. Kid Rock rocks the troops. He joins me live. Stay with us.