KING: Since the last election, a number of states have moved ahead with
same-sex marriage proposals. Some have done it legislatively. Some have
done it in other ways. Some has happened through the courts, which I
know both of you think is the wrong way to do anything, whether it's
same-sex marriage or anything else. But, if, at the end of
this conversation, you come to the conclusion that the consensus of the
people you're talking to is to agree what Steve Schmidt, John McCain's
campaign manager, said, you know, the Republicans are viewed as
intolerant because we want constitutional amendments banning same-sex
marriage. If, at the end of this conversation, you think the
consensus is, leave it to the states, which was Dick Cheney's position.
That was Tom DeLay's positions, be federalist and let state-by-state
make these decisions. Are you both willing to support that?
ROMNEY: My view I've laid out before, which is you really can't have
different marriage provisions in different states and then expect
people to be able to move around the nation and have different rights
in different states. Marriage is a matter of national
consequence. It's a — it's a status. It's not an activity. And as a
result, there should be a national standard. And my own view is that
marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.
And so if five or 10 states go that way, do you need to have a
constitutional amendment, a national referendum? How do you deal with
CANTOR: I think Mitt has made the point that there are
federal implications; there are national implications to what one state
does, in terms of the status of a married person in another state. I share Mitt's views. I believe in conditional marriage between a man
and a woman. It's been that way thousands of years. And I believe that
most of the American people, by far, apply or adhere to that principle.
So I would continue to support the ability for us to say that's what a
marriage means in America.