The purpose of marriage is what the Supreme Court has said 14 times. It’s a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty, and being with the person you love and forming a part of the community and being treated equally with the rest of society. . . . What court after court after court has said, that allowing people of the same sex to marry the person that they love, to be part of the community and to be treated equally, does no damage to heterosexual marriage.
PERKINS: Let me ask you, what are the boundaries, though? If it’s just love, what are the boundaries? Where can we go with marriage?WALLACE: What are you suggesting? That [there’s] going to be polygamy. That people will be marrying their pets?(CROSSTALK)PERKINS: No, I didn’t say that. If we remove the natural established boundaries for marriage, the union of a man and woman, we have removed those boundaries, those guardrails.
WALLACE: We’re going to get to that in a second. But your argument as to whether somehow this damages the [Perkinses] to have another couple next door?OLSON: Well, everyone who has ever talked about this says there’s no heterosexual couple that is going to decide to get divorced or not to get married or not to raise children just because another couple next to them is treated equally and with respect and decency under our Constitution. That is why we have courts.The same argument Mr. Perkins was making was made with respect to interracial marriages in 1967 — 30 some states at one point prohibited interracial marriages.And talk about the color of the skin? People were making the same arguments. Marriage is wrong between people of different races. We have to stop that.When the Supreme Court finally acted, 16 states were still prohibiting interracial marriages.