Face the Nation transcripts March 24, 2013: Same sex marriage, foreign policy
(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on March 24, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include NFL Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, who participates in a panel on same sex marriage including Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, conservative David Frum of the Daily Beast and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Then, House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers in a foreign policy panel including New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, Time Magazine's Bobby Ghosh, and CBS News Foreign Correspondent Clarissa Ward. Finally, political analysis from CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford and CBS News Political Director John Dickerson.
Bob Schieffer: Today on FACE THE NATION, is America ready for same sex marriage?
President Barack Obama: Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.
Schieffer: The president made same sex marriage a cornerstone of his inaugural address, but is the rest of America ready to redefine marriage? As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the arguments, we'll hear form all sides, including Baltimore Ravens Linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo.
Brendon Ayanbadejo: I believe we should be doing everything that we can to make families stronger.
Bob Schieffer: Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, conservative David Frum of the Daily Beast and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
Tony Perkins: Americans just don't see same sex marriage being natural.
Bob Schieffer: Then we'll turn to the president's trip to the Middle East and the controversy on drones here at home, with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, plus a panel that includes Tom Friedman, columnist at the New York Times, Bobby Ghosh of Time Magazine, and CBS News foreign correspondent Clarissa Ward. CBS Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford and Political Director John Dickerson will join us for Analysis because this is FACE THE NATION.
Bob Schieffer: Good morning, again, this week the Supreme Court takes up two big cases on same-sex marriage, whether the voters can say no to same-sex marriage as they did in California with proposition 8, and whether the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman, is constitutional. At the Supreme Court, people are already lining up to get in to see the arguments. Here with us to talk about those cases, Evan Wolfson, head of the group Freedom to Marry. Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research council. Also joining us Austin Nimocks, who is part of the legal team defending California's proposition 8 and David Frum, conservative columnist for the "Daily Beast" who once opens but now supports same-sex marriage and Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, who filed a brief in the court supporting same-sex marriage, he joins us today from Ft. Lauderdale, and Brendon, I want to start with you. We haven't seen too many people from the NFL on the frontlines supporting same-sex marriage. What brought you into this? You filed this brief to be a friend of the court on this. how did you become involved, and why?
Brendon Ayanbadejo: Well, this is something I've been speaking about since 2009, and in my opinion, it's just the evolution of civil rights and equal rights and athletes do a lot to change society, and this is something we can make a big difference on. It starts with bullying kids in elementary school and it goes all the way to legislative and treating everybody equally. This is a fight myself and a bunch of my colleagues we want to take to and we feel that everyone should be treated equally and we're not going to stop until everyone is treated fairly and that's especially including the LGBT community.
Bob Schieffer: was there one single thing that caused you to say, hey, this is just wrong, and I think we ought to change it?
Brendon Ayanbadejo: Well, I think it's something we see every day. I mean, we all have coworkers, friends, family members that are part of the LGBT community, and I was always raised in a Santa Cruz, California, that everybody was equal, and everybody was fair and that's why proposition 8 needs to be repealed in California. It's just a way of life that I have been, you know, being a biracial kid and knowing what it's like to be a part of the minority, I know what it feels like to be treated differently and discriminated. So this is no different. The way the LGBT community is treated -- the same as minorities, whether it's African Americans or Latinos or Asians or even women comparing this to suffrage and the civil rights movement -- it's just the evolution of the same issue.
Bob Schieffer: Tony Perkins, of course you are on the very other side of this issue. You have been a defender of conventional marriage, that is, marriage should be between a man and a woman but even you recognize that attitudes are really changing on this, in this country. The Washington Post had a poll out here where now I think it is 58 percent of the people now support same-sex. That's versus 36% who don't and among young people it's an even more overwhelming favorability, about 80 percent say they now support it. You said in the statement this week that abandoning marriage would place republicans; these are your words, on the path to a permanent minority. In light of these polls, why do you think that?
Tony Perkins: Well, Bob, first off, the polls that really matter are the polls that are taken when the people actually vote on this and when people have voted, as late as 10 months ago, 30 states have put the natural definition of marriage into their state constitution, on average by a vote of 67 percent. Talk about polls. Polls, you get really what you ask for. and there are later polls out by Reuters this week, the Pew research that show still not only is it evenly split in this nation, but when you look at Republicans, 63 percent of Republicans say it would be harmful to marriage to redefine, to redefine marriage, it would be harmful to the family.
Bob Schieffer: You certainly don't question the trend seems to be toward it's okay.
Tony Perkins: If it's inevitable, as the media would like us to believe, there's no reason for the court to interject itself in this. The reality, is it's not inevitable and the American people, when they've had the opportunity to speak on this, have spoken overwhelmingly. 30 states, eight additional states, have the definition of natural marriage into their statutes. So we're far from being at a point where America has embraced same-sex marriage. I mean, if you look at it-- Brendon, they won the super bowl by three points. We're at 30 to 2 states where the people have voted on marriage. That's a pretty wide spread.
Bob Schieffer: Austin, what is your best argument your legal team can make. You are not personally arguing this case but you're part of the legal team. What does this hang on? What will you hang it on?
Austin Nimocks: Well, the big question going before the Supreme Court is whether or not the Supreme Court should impose a 50-state solution upon this entire country regarding the debate surrounding marriage, a debate that is really very young in this country and we are just starting to have and that's exactly what we don't need when we see Americans of all walks of life, all different faiths and backgrounds, and creeds, engaging in the marriage debate. President Obama said there are people of good will on both sides of the debate and the last thing we need is to shut down the debate, have the Supreme Court redefine marriage for everybody, instead of letting us work through this question through our democratic institutions. That's why we have them. The Supreme Court is not a legislature. We have ballot boxes for a reason and we're asking the Supreme Court not to interject itself in this question.
Bob Schieffer: Evan, the last thing we need, that would be, I would say -- you would say it's the first thing we need.
Evan Wolfson: Well, the whole reason we have fundamental freedoms and rights is that there are certain things that's shouldn't be put up for a vote. These are important questions for families and individuals to decide and the freedom to marry is one of the precious freedoms we cherish and gay people, like non-gay people, deserve under the constitution it's the ability to shape a family, build a life and have these dreams. A few weeks ago the Mexico Supreme Court ruled in favor unanimously for the freedom to marry and when the Supreme Court-- when the Mexican Supreme Court did that, it cited "Brown versus Board of Education" and "Loving versus Virginia,"cases in which our court here in the United States did the right thing under the constitution. 64 percent of the American people, in the poll you cited, said that the freedom to marry is a question that should be addressed fairly and nationally, not left to every family to have to fight and struggle over. It's wrong to exclude people from marriage, and America is ready for the Supreme Court to do the right thing.
Bob Schieffer: Now, David, I ask you today because you're someone who changed his mind. You used to be against same-sex marriage. You were, you are a republican. You worked for George Bush. You wrote speeches for George Bush. You've been an activist for Republicans. You used to be against it now you're for it. Tell me how that came about.
David Frum: Well, in the deepest sense I have had, I have the same view. Which is, I think the single most important question is how do you maximize the number of children who grow up in stable two-parent households. We know in all kinds of ways it makes a huge difference to how kids come out and we are hardening into a caste society where some kids do better in all kinds of ways because they have two parents and others don't. Since we've started debating this issue intensely, almost now 20 years ago, the proportion of American kids born outside of marriage has risen from about a third to nearly one-half. We will soon cross, it will become the majority way. While this social crisis is raging, we have been debating this other topic. The two issues seem to have less and less and less to do with one another. So my concern is instead of wasting energy trying to make 3 percent of the population the target for all of our anxieties about what is happening to the American family -- happiness is happiness. Let 3 percent choose, let them lead a more fulfilled life and let our redirect our attention to the crisis in the 97 percent where children are being failed by the institution of the family and marriage.
Bob Schieffer: Let me just throw a question out here to all of you, what would be wrong with letting religious institutions define marriage and what it is, and let the government define what equal rights are and the government would be the entity that decided and ensured that everybody got equal rights and then various churches could define what they thought marriage was, and gay people, other people could choose the church that fit their particular beliefs?
Tony Perkins: Well, if you want to talk about rights, let's talk about those rights that have been lost in the wake of same-sex marriage and religious freedom have been among them. You've got catholic charities no longer doing adoptions, not providing vital services right here in this city as a result of same-sex marriage in DC. You got parental rights being lost. Parents no longer being able to determine what their children are taught whose moral values they're taught in school. We have small business men losing their right because they won't participate in same-sex ceremonies. So you want to talk about rights, let's talk about rights. This ultimately is not about marriage. It's not about the marriage alter. It's about fundamentally altering society and so you can't divide the two. David is right. This is what I spent most of my time in until this effort to redefine marriage came about. Kids need a mom and dad. We have decades of social science that show kids do best with a mom and dad that are married. It's not two parents, because If it's two, three would be better or four. It's a mom and a dad, and this is a distraction. You're absolutely right but this will be a major public policy shift that will move us further away from the ideal goal of giving kids a mom and a dad because by law we would be denying kids a mom and a dad.
Bob Schieffer: Do you agree with that, Brendon?
Brendon Ayanbadejo: No, I disagree. I think, Marriage, marriage, kids really need love from two parents. It doesn't matter if it's a mom and a mom, or a dad and a dad. Kids need love and kids are not getting enough love in America because kids haven't been going the right way. We need to protect families by allowing same-sex couples to get married and also we need to protect religious freedoms because, in this country we allow people to practice religion or not practice religion. So, you need to keep the two separate. That's why we're in a secular democracy and kids just need love. It doesn't matter if it's from two parents that are of the same sex or not and I think kids would be a lot better off if they have the love that they need and that's why we need to protect the family unit and allow same-sex couples to get married.
Bob Schieffer: Austin, when you go before the court, what about that? I mean from just the standpoint of the law, what do you want the court to do? Would you be satisfied if they just told the people in California they don't, you know, that it's up to people of California out there to decide what they want. I mean, or that is not constitutional for them to overturn prop 8, or do you want to see something else? I'm not sure I understand what you all would like to see happen here.
Austin Nimocks: I want the court to see what is happening right here, that we have a robust debate at this table, and in this country, going on about same-sex marriage. We're looking at decades of social science research, and there's new research, and people on both sides of this issue have very strong feel about the well-being of children, the well-being of families and the well-being of the future of our society, and this debate has just begun. We're very young into this debate over marriage and its importance to tower society and so this is the last time that we need the Supreme Court to interject itself, and remove this robust debate from the hands of the people. We have these robust Democratic institutions in this country for a reason because the people are sovereign and that's especially so with the prop 8 case and the people in California who have now voted twice in a nine-year period on the question of marriage and both times voted to uphold the union of a man and a woman. The right of the people to deal with and decide on this important issue should not be taken away and that is the thrust of what we are asking the Supreme Court to do.
Evan Wolfson: Well when the question of race restrictions of who could marry whom having come before the Supreme Court again, the court having gotten it wrong before they got it right, the court ruled in favor of the freedom to marry and 70 percent of the American people at that time were against interracial marriage. Fortunately, in America we don't put everything up to a vote, we don't force families to put their freedom of speech or freedom of religion or freedom to marry up to a vote but you asked the question about religion, and the reality in the country is Government doesn't issue bar mitzvah licenses. It doesn't issue communion licenses, but it issues marriage licenses because marriage is not only a religious entity in which religions are free to decide for themselves who may marry. It is also a legal and civil status that the government opens through civil marriage licenses. What we're talking about here is who can get the civil marriage license from the government in order to strengthen their family under the law. it's not about telling any religion what it must do and you know you asked the question about defining marriage. Marriage is not defined by who is denied it. When gay people share in the freedom to marry, it doesn't change your marriage. It doesn't change Tony Perkins' marriage. My marriage is my marriage, and it means I'm able to share in the same aspirations of commitment and love and support and dedication and connectedness, and that my parents are able to dance at our wedding and that our family and friends are able to support and celebrate and hold us accountable for the commitment we've made to one another. That takes nothing away from anyone else. The gay people are not going to use up all the marriage licenses when we enter marriage, and this is not just somebody saying it. We now have nine states, plus want District of Columbia, 14 countries on four continents in which gay people share in the freedom to marry and the results is families are helped and no one is hurt.
Bob Schieffer: Brendon, I want to ask you, in the NFL if a player were gay, and I have no idea if there are gay people in the NFL. You may know. Would a gay person feel comfortable in coming out, as it were, if he were a football player in the NFL?
Brendon Ayanbadejo: Yes, I think so. You know, if you go back three or four years ago, people were a lot more harsh, and this issue really wasn't talked about and it was a little bit swept under the rug. Now we're trying to bring this issue to the forefront, and I'm preparing and Chris Cluey and Scott Fujita, we're all preparing and laying a foundation for the athlete, our Jackie Robinson, that does come out, that he'll be comfortable, that he'll have a support group around him, with teams like the san Francisco 49ers with the "it gets better" campaign, and also with the Baltimore Ravens denouncing discrimination and I think we're laying the groundwork for a player to be comfortable in 2013 to come out if he's willing to do so.
Bob Schieffer: Tony Perkins, sum it up from your side.
Tony Perkins: Well, I wish it was just about the marriage altar. It's about much more. It is about altering all of society, with marriage goes with what our children are taught, Parents losing the right to define morals for their children. It's about religious freedom, unfortunately. The two are intertwined in our culture. It's about the right to conduct your business as you see fit. So there's a lot at stake here and its right, Austin is right, the court should not interject itself. We've got the history of "roes have v wade "of what happens when the court interjects itself. The pro-life movement would probably not, as strong and vibrant as it is today had the court not stepped in and forced abortion on the nation 40 years ago so think it would be a big mistake for the court to interject itself.
Bob Schieffer: We will have to stop before there because the clock has run out but I want to thank all of and you for being here with us, we'll be back in one minute.
Bob Schieffer: And we're going to shift the subject considerably here. Mike Rogers who's the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee - thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being with us.
Mike Rogers: Thank you, Bob.
Bob Schieffer: Mr. Chairman. This week both sides in the civil war, the Assad government and the rebels fighting against it, accused the other of using chemical weapons. You've kind of got this in the news early in the week when you said you had been briefed, you and Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I think you said there was the possibility that chemical weapons might have been used by the rebels. Later in the week officials seemed to say they were pretty much thinking maybe they hadn't been used. Can you clear this up now?
Mike Rogers: Absolutely.
Bob Schieffer: Where do you think we are on that? Did somebody use chemical weapons?
Mike Rogers: I think when you look at the whole body of information, Bob, over the last two years, there is mounting evidence that it is probable that the Assad regime has used at least a small quantity of chemical weapons during the course of this conflict.
Bob Schieffer: The President said in Israel that if we find out that they had used chemical weapons, that would be, his phrase was 'a game changer.' He said before that just moving chemical weapons around would be a red line for us. What do you think he meant by that? Does he mean we're going to take military action, if they are using chemical weapons, or as he said, that some are moving them around?
Mike Rogers: Well last, it was August 20th of 201[12], he said both moving and/or using would change the U.S. calculus. I think it is abundantly clear that that red line has been crossed.
Bob Schieffer: Really?
Mike Rogers: Absolutely. It's interesting you see in the Senate, a Republican and a Democrat coming out saying we better do something. In the House the same Republicans and Democrats saying we're going to do something. Now is the time. If we're going to have any hope for any diplomatic solution and stop that wholesale slaughter of up to 70,000 and more in Syria, which is now spilling up to the doorstep of Israel, it's causing huge problems in Jordan, Turkey. This is a growing destabilizing event in the Middle East. The fact that they have, I think, put chemical weapons in a position to use and I believe have intent and, at some course during the last two years, have used some quantity of chemical weapons, this needs to be a game changer. You know, the President went to the Middle East and said this is a hard decision. If I go in it might be wrong. If I don't go in it might be wrong. Indecision, in this case, is dangerous to the United States' national security.
Bob Schieffer: So what should he do? I mean are you saying direct military intervention by the United States? What would you advise him to do?
Mike Rogers: If you want to regain our ability to have a diplomatic solution, we have no faith. I mean think of this, the opposition told the Secretary of State not interested in a meeting. Our Arab League allies talked to us frequently and they are as frustrated as I have ever seen them without, because of the lack of U.S. leadership at the table. This doesn't mean 101st Airborne Division and ships, it means small groups with special capabilities re-engaging the opposition so we can vet them, train them, equip them, so they can be an effective fighting force. And why that's important, Bob, is when this, if Assad goes next week, this is mass chaos. Think of the chemical weapons where you have al-Qaeda on the loose. You have Hezbollah on the loose in Syria. You have elements of Hamas in Syria now, trying to get their hands on this stuff. And you also have conventional weapons that makes the flood of weapons from Libya flying across to Northern Africa look like an antique gun show. This stuff is sophisticated, complicated, and destabilizing to the entire region.
Bob Schieffer: So what you're suggesting here is training special forces people to go in there or just using our special forces people to train the rebels to deal with this?
Mike Rogers: Yeah. I think if we create a safe zone in the North, meaning, think of this, the Assad regime has used approximately 100 Scud missiles so far on civilians. That, in and of itself, should prompt action. So we can do this in a way that doesn't lure the United States into a big boots-on-the-ground conflict, but uses our small group special capabilities to make sure that Scud missiles don't reach their targets. To make sure that they lose the opportunity to even use chemical weapons and train the right folks to get in there so we have some credibility on the ground for a diplomatic solution.
Bob Schieffer: Alright stick around for page two. We're going to devote the whole half hour to this situation and other foreign policy matters. I'll be back in a minute with some personal thoughts.
Bob Schieffer: Did you hear the news? The Senate finally passed a budget. And aren't you proud of them? Took them 13 hours of debating and voting on various amendments, and it was almost five o'clock Saturday morning before they finally passed it. Of course it's just a blueprint, has no force of law, and no more chance of passage than the budget passed by the House. But it is the first time that the Senate has been able to even pass a budget blueprint in four years, so I guess congratulations are in order -- maybe a brief golf clap. I won't go so far, though, as to say we should give the Senators comp time off for working after-hours. I already checked and they should be well-rested even after a long night. The Library of Congress reports that so far this year both House members and senators have been off more days than they've worked. They've already started their spring break, and will be back after Easter. That would be a full week after Easter. Good work if you can get it. Back in a minute.
Bob Schieffer: And here we are on "Face the Nation" page two, Congressman Rogers is back, along with New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, TIME Magazine World Editor Bobby Ghosh, CBS News Foreign Correspondent Clarissa Ward. She is joining us from our London bureau, and Clarissa, of course, is the reporter who got into Syria and brought us those spectacular reports of the Syria - of the civil war there before anyone else was able to do it. Clarissa, let me start with you this morning. There is news that the head of the Syrian National Coalition--that would, I guess, be the opposition group fighting the Assad regime, has resigned. Do you have any idea what this is about?
Clarissa Ward: Yes, that's right. This was announced this morning, Moaz al-Khatib who we actually interviewed in December, announcing his resignation. This wasn't much of a surprise to many political insiders who felt that while Moaz al-Khatib is a well-respected man, a thoughtful man, and an intelligent man, he didn't necessarily have the political experience to be leading the Syrian opposition, and of course, he ruffled a lot of feathers a couple of months ago when he suggested that the Syrian opposition should be having talks with the regime. So really, he suffered from a lack of legitimacy, particularly with fighters on the ground inside Syria.
Bob Schieffer: So do you think this brings the opposition closer together, or what happens now?
Clarissa Ward: Well, that's the million-dollar question. The opposition now has a new leader, a new Prime Minister, Ghassan Hitto, who spent many years in Texas, but it remains to be seen whether he will be able to unify the opposition and turn them into an effective and coherent force. And, of course, the subtext here really is, that within the international community, I think patience is running out, and the Syrian opposition does understand that, and that they really need to get it right this time.
Bob Schieffer: Chairman Rogers, what's--what's your take on that?
Mike Rogers: Well, it just goes to show you the split between the opposition, which is the fighters, and we have this growing problem. So you have the Al Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda associated and affiliated organization, playing a greater role in the secular opposition units in the fighting. So there is a difference between where the political folks are, the opposition political structure, who is trying to apply itself over what it the fighting force and they don't feel very connected, and we've had several meetings without the (inaudible), was, I thought a great selection for them with one exception, he had no credibility with the very people he was supposed to represent. And I, I don't see another political force dropped on top of the opposition that is going to work either. This is why I think you have to establish better credibility on behalf of the United States and our allies, the Arab League, with the folks on the ground who are taking casualties. They're very passionate, they're emotional about this, they see their friends and their families slaughtered. You have to connect to that in a very different way than just saying we're going to have these political opposition leaders parachute in and provide some guidance and leadership. That credibility just hasn't worked, I don't think it's going to work moving forward, either.
Bob Schieffer: Tom, I mean, you say "Middle East" and those two words tell you, this is more complicated than it looks from the outside. Where do we go from here? What should the United States be doing right now? We've had 70,000 people killed since it's uprising, and how many -- what -- millions of people who have fled the country. They're overwhelming Jordan, Turkey. What should we be doing? Are we doing what we ought to be doing right now?
Tom Friedman: Well, Bob, you know, I think we have to start with the fact that the Syrian problem is the problem from hell. It really is, absolutely, just an awful problem because you've got this Assad regime that has been ruling Syria, I know, since the late 60s, that family -- and it does still have support. It has support of the Alawites, it has support the Christians, it has support of some of some Sunnis. At the same time, you have this rebellion against this regime. Now the rebellion has three different streams in it. It has one stream that wants to truly be citizens, people we would really identify with, a Syria where people have rights and responsibilities. It has another group that wants Syria to be more sectarian. They want Sunni Muslims in charge. Let's remember, the biggest supporters of the Syrian rebellion are Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These are two Wahhabi fundamentalist monarchies. Do you really think they're there for democracy? Then you have a third group that wants Syria to be more Islamist. So, as the Congressman said, we do not have a unified opposition. There are two things I would keep in mind for the United States going into this, if we learned anything from the other Arab awakenings. One is, whatever we do, you must have maximum international legitimacy -- Arab League, UN. You do not want to be acting in that environment alone. Second, you really want the Russians on board, they're key players there, they're key players with the regime, and I'd add a third thing -- the Lebanese civil war, I lived in for five years, ended after 15 years on the basis of one principle: no victor, no vanquished. That is there has got to be a deal at the end that's going to respect and protect the rights of the Christians, the Alawites and the Sunnis who supported the regime as well as the opposition. And until and unless the opposition is ready to do that kind of deal, I think we're going to have a real problem. I'd be very, very careful.
Bob Schieffer: Bobby, do you think this is anywhere close to being resolved?
Bobby Ghosh: No, I'm--I'm afraid not, and I don't think the opposition politics that takes place outside of Syria is going to have a tremendous bearing on what's going on in the country. I think Tom is exactly right. The-the people inside the country have much greater at stake, and, therefore, think, and quite likely that they should have a much bigger voice, and their voices are not far from unified. The Russia piece, as Tom mentioned, is, I think, the crucial thing. I think rallying international opinion, which President Obama has been trying to do, and putting pressure, political pressure on Russia, moral pressure, if you like, is what's going--that's going to be a game changer, if he can make that happen. Russia, I'm sure, can't indefinitely be seen - wouldn't like to be indefinitely seen as on the side of the bad guys here. And especially if chemical weapons are being used, I don't think Russia's going to enjoy being seen as a country that supports a guy, Bashar al-Assad, who's gassing his own people. So, moral pressure, more (inaudible) on Russia, political pressure, is probably the best thing the US can do right now to try and bring more and more pressure to bear on Assad.
Bob Schieffer: Let's talk about the President's trip to Israel, his first visit to Israel as President. Tom, you said a couple of weeks ago you couldn't remember a President's trip where you expected so little to happen. Was this a good trip for the President? Was it good for Israel? How do you think it shakes down?
Tom Friedman: I think it was a good trip for the President, he made a breakthrough, both with the Israeli government and the Israeli people. More importantly, an emotional breakthrough -- as Israeli journalist friends of mine said, there's a feeling in Israel right now, if they disagree with him it's not because he bears ill intentions towards Israel. That said, Bob, again, there's been a huge strategic shift for the United States vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict for us has gone from a necessity to a hobby. For India and China, it's gone from a hobby to a necessity. Why is that? Because of the massive change in the global oil and energy world. We are going to be the world's biggest oil producer by the 2020s sometime. The days when we had to worry that a fight between Israelis and Palestinians was going to lead to gas lines in America, those are over. And I bring that up because there is a huge asymmetry, Bob, between what an American President -- or Secretary of State would do -- would have to do to achieve a breakthrough here. Cause you got to get tough with both sides. You know, it's going to cost real political capital, and there are real stakes for us. There are now six -- nearly 600,000 Israeli Jews living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Palestinian position is, we need to get the vast majority of the West Bank back, and part of East Jerusalem as our capital. To square that circle, the amount of political heft you would have to bring as a President or Secretary of State will be enormous, and whether it really is justified by our interests anymore, I think is questionable.
Bob Schieffer: Clarissa, what do you see the impact on -- beyond the borders of Israel, by the President's trip here?
Clarissa Ward: Well, I think the most tangible result that that saw from the President's trip was essentially facilitating a (inaudible) between Israel and Turkey, Prime Minister Netanyahu, calling the Turkish Prime Minister, officially apologizing for the Gaza flotilla incident three years ago that resulted in the death of eight Turkish activists. The relationship between Turkey and Israel is absolutely crucial, particularly now where really the most dangerous and explosive conflict that is going on in the Middle East is no longer the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but of course the conflict that is raging inside Syria. And those two countries will need to work very closely together to try and navigate the waters ahead.
Bob Schieffer: Congressman--oh, did you have something you wanted to add to that?
Mike Rogers: Well, this has been, the Turkey-Israeli deal is, was candidly not led by the United States, it was led by the necessity for Turkey and Israel to start working together on Syria. The problems in Syria are knocking on Israel's door, and they are, certainly have knocked on Turkish door steps already, and they understood that they had to have a better facilitation of both military and intelligence cooperation. This has been something that's been going on for two years. I'll guarantee you - one phone call, when the President showed up in Israel was not the impetus of this. And I think we make a serious mistake if we don't step back and say, Mr. President, when you travel there you need to have the gravitas and the credibility to fix some of these problems. And I thought, candidly, the President did us a little bit of harm when he was asked the question by the Syrian reporter, 'why is not a superpower engaged in some way to better the prospects of this outcome?' And he said, well, basically, it's too hard. So I'm not going to make a decision, I'm going to send you a check. Everybody sees that. The red line has been crossed. Iran is watching to see what happens. North Korea watches to see what happens. That's why this has such global implications, and I really, candidly I thought the trip was a disappointment for us. I think the President squandered great opportunity to actually show leadership and push them in a place where they could either get an agreement on a meeting, they didn't get it - just got a speech; we could get to some agreement on what was going - the path forward on Syria. Didn't get that. Matter of fact, I think we confused that more. And so this Palestinian-Israeli issue really did, I think, as Tom said, take a backseat to all of the serious problems which is chemical weapons staring our allies in the face and conventional weapons staring our allies in the face by very non-state, irrational violent actors.
Bob Schieffer: Do you agree with that, Bobby? Do you think we have to put a U.S. stamp on this? The White House understanding, as I understand it, is maybe it's better to let, to put others in the front sometimes.
Bobby Ghosh: You know, I think toward that the conversation between Prime Ministers Netanyahu and Erdogan was meant to do that, was meant to put other people at the front. Leading from behind is the operating principle here. I think what the administration's hands are a little tied. There's a credibility problem. I think that there are things that the United States can do to make the countries in the neighborhood more empowered. Essentially, the, if you like, a flanking operation that takes Russia out of the equation politically and diplomatically, is probably the most practical thing that the Obama administration can attempt to do now. Turkey is a front, if you like a front line state, in the Syria problem, Turkey is involved, wants to be involved. Having Turkey and Israel coordinate is very important. I take the Congressman's point that this is something that has been, the two countries have been working closely together for a very, very long time. And this phone call wasn't a sudden, spontaneous thing. But still, it does take the gravitas and the prestige of the American President to put the final seal on this deal. It allows both Erdogan and Netanyahu to have an honest broker in the room and allows them to say, hey look. The President of the United States said we should make this call. We should make this call. That's very important. That's, the symbolism of that is not to be underestimated.
Bob Schieffer: I want to ask you all about Afghanistan. And Clarissa, I know you've spent some time on the ground there. I mean, just looking at this from offshore, through heavy lenses, as we say, it seems to be getting worse and worse. What is the situation there and what's going to happen now when we announce how many troops we're going to leave later this year? I guess later this year we'll announce that. Do you see this thing breaking into total chaos? Will it somehow limp along? Just look in your crystal ball here and tell us what you see.
Clarissa Ward: From my experiences on the ground it seems to me very clear that if there is not some type of agreement already in place, some type of an understanding, between Karzai's government and Karzai's forces and the Taliban, you are not going to see any letting-up in the violence in Afghanistan. And as NATO and U.S. forces pull out, it becomes increasingly unlikely that the Afghan forces will be able to adequately defend themselves and the interests of the Afghan government. So at this stage, when I look in my crystal ball, I have a much more positive outcome, or I envision a much more positive outcome if there is more emphasis placed on talks between the Taliban and Karzai's government and getting them to both come to the table and agree together on some kind of a vision for a future Afghanistan because neither side can win alone.
Bob Schieffer: Congressman, before we wind this up I want to ask you about these reports that came out this week that it appears that the government is at least considering moving all of the drones that we've had that have played such a big part in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world on terrorism, moving them from the CIA to Defense Department control. What do you think about that?
Mike Rogers: Well, listen. There is - there are certain capabilities exist writ-large, the United States Government, airstrikes being one of them. It's been a very, very effective tool in disrupting the leadership of al Qaeda. I would be cautious about trying to shift around key assets in the government, wherever they come from, that has all of the expertise. You know, when you conduct an airstrike against a senior, high-value target overseas in the war on counterterrorism, most people think this is an easy thing, you fly your aircraft, you find where it is and you launch. That couldn't be further from the truth. The value of this program comes from the entire set of package, from trying to figure out who these people are, why they're a threat, where they are, and then having the ability to do something about them. I would be very cautious about trying to interject anything that would disrupt our ability to have the flexibility to go after key targets wherever we find them.
Bob Schieffer: Let me just ask you quickly, I guess the argument is that some people seem worried we're spending so much time, the CIA is, in becoming a kind of para-military organization that they're neglecting some of their intelligence gathering. Do you, does that bother you?
Mike Rogers: I reject that wholesale. As the Chairman it's my job to make sure that our intelligence agencies are engaging in all of the elements of our national security intelligence apparatus - from counterterrorism operations to the strategic value of the threats burgeoning from a growing Chinese military, an increased capable Russian military, cyber threats - all of it, the whole panoply of threats that the United States face. And we face a bunch. It's about ten percent, roughly, approximately, of our budget focused on what is a real and present threat when we had troops in the field. I think that was an optimal way to do it. We still have a lot of strategic threats -
Bob Schieffer: Alright. Okay we'll stop there. We're going to have a little analysis of what's going on back here at home in a minute.
Bob Schieffer: And we're back now with our Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford and Political Director John Dickerson and, Jan, you had a heavy load to carry this week. The Court is suddenly back in the news and will be, even more so, this week. How do you see this coming down on gay marriage?
Jan Crawford: Well you know, Bob, I mean obviously predicting the Supreme Court is a very dangerous business, as everyone saw last year when they took up the President's healthcare ruling. No one really saw that coming. That said, I believe that it's very unlikely the Supreme Court is going to say, you have a constitutional right, a broad-based constitutional right, to gay marriage. This is a Supreme Court that doesn't really like to get very far out in front of public opinion. Nine states now allow gay marriage. It seems unlikely, and I think people both sides agree, that they're not going to say to the other 41, you've got to change your rules and allow it.
Bob Schieffer: So what would they do? I mean how would that...
Jan Crawford: What's most likely, I think particularly in that California case, which is the one they're going to hear first and that's the one that bans gay marriage in the state of California. I think that there's a really strong chance that they're going to throw it out on procedural grounds. They won't even reach the issue. That means it'll go back down to California, the lower court decision will stay in place, and gay marriages will resume. I don't believe, and I think a lot of people on both sides agree, they're going to inject themselves in that issue at this point. Now, of course, they may. And I know obviously opponents of that hope that they do. But there is a chance. This is a Court that cares about some of those issues. If you're the right party to be in the Supreme Court. Now on the other hand, in the other case, I think they will get involved in that. That, of course, is the case they'll hear on Wednesday and that asks whether the federal government can define marriage between a man or a woman. This is a very important issue for gays and lesbians across the country, especially in those nine states that allow gay marriage because under federal law, the federal government can't recognize those marriages. That means those couples can't get federal benefits, they can't even file federal tax returns, and this Court cares about Congress big footing the states. And marriage, traditionally, has been an issue that has been left up to the states.
Bob Schieffer: You know I'm kind of in line with what you're saying here. I saw a piece where Justice Ginsburg, somebody talked to her, and she's one of the more liberal, probably one of the most liberal members of the Court, she apparently is on the record as saying that she thought the Court, that while she agreed with Roe v. Wade, thought that the Court may have moved too fast in that area. So that's...
Jan Crawford: And you see, you know, people actually on both side of the abortion debate saying, look, abortion was proceeding in the states in the early 70s, the states were addressing it, the Court injected itself into that controversy and froze the opposition and allowed it to just explode. And there's a real concern by some people that the Court could jump into this case and have the same effect. You saw some of that even in your panel discussion.
Bob Schieffer: John, I want to get right to guns, which is the one thing we really haven't talked to today, about much about today. Once they finally get back from yet another vacation, Congress, the Senate is going to take up some sort of a gun bill, but it looks like the assault weapons ban is not going to be in there. There's a real question as to whether they'll have a strong background check in there.
John Dickerson: That's right. Most everybody who watched this knew that the assault weapons ban, even thought that's directly tied to what happened in Newtown, was not going to make it into the final legislation. So the key thing to watch is this question of background checks. Now on the more liberal side, they say there needs to be a record of these background checks so if a crime is committed, using a gun, you can trace it back to the person who's responsible for passing that gun along. What conservatives say, is that if there's a record, what people are going to think in the gun culture, people who have grown up with guns is, once you have a record of a purchase, you're coming to get my guns. So when you talk to Senator Manchin of West Virginia, the Democrat who's trying to put together a bill, he's saying we need somebody that's a part of this bill who comes from that gun culture. Tom Coburn, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma, was also a part of these negotiations. They say, culturally, people need to know you're not coming to grab their guns. That's the key tipping point. So into that sensitive moment comes these ads backed by Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York. And he tries to be sensitive to these ideas, but Michael Bloomberg is also the mayor who stopped people from smoking cigarettes inside and also tried to limit their intake of sugary drinks. Now to somebody in the gun culture, the intervention of a man who tried to stop cigarettes and sodas, means that this is a movement where they're going to come get your guns. And that is where we are right now going into this discussion about gun legislation.
Bob Schieffer: One other thing, Jan, the Dakota...was it North or South Dakota?
Jan Crawford: North Dakota.
Bob Schieffer: The North Dakota legislature put this referendum on their next ballot, which would basically outlaw abortion
Jan Crawford: That's right.
Bob Schieffer: And if they did that, they'd be the first state to do that. Do you see that as spreading, as it were?
Jan Crawford: Absolutely. And you're...people on both sides of the abortion issue see states across the country increasingly passing these tough new laws to restrict abortion and they say it's all about getting up to the Supreme Court, hoping to get a test case before the Supreme Court to see if this new Supreme Court, now with five conservative justices, will overturn Roe v. Wade. Very unlikely, though, even if it got that far, that would happen at this point.
Bob Schieffer: Alright. A lot going on at the Court. Thank you all, both. Thank you, John. We'll be back in a minute.
Bob Schieffer: That's it for us today, be sure to stay with CBS News on all platforms this week for our coverage of those two big Supreme Court cases. As for us, we'll see you right here next week on FACE THE NATION.