listen, give me a sense of your reaction this morning after hearing president obama's announcement. >> well, i'm still elated and filled with emotion, what president obama did yesterday was so courageous because, as you know, other past presidents and vice presidents have come out in favor of marriage equality for gay people, but president obama did it while he's still in office and while there's still -- some might consider a risk to his future presidency, re-election but it was incredibly fantastic for 14 and 15-year-old kids to hear the president of the united states say to them that they are entitled to be with the person that they love. that there is not going to be a hole in their life, that he supports them regardless of what their parents might say, regardless of what their church might say. he supports who they are as a full human being. >> well, he also said, mitchell, he believes that the issue should be decided state by state which really isn't going as far as potentially as he could go. are you disappointed by that? >> well, i'm always disappointed when politicians throw a little bit of nuance to it and try to cover themselves or say something that, frankly, is i think quite idiotic but, you know, we all know what it means when you throw things back to the states, that that is open opportunity for prejudice and discrimination but i really think that the bigger issue is for him to come out as a leader and say that he believes and understands why gay people should be entitled to all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of marriage. that's the bigger issue. >> he talked about it being an evolution and he talked about even the impact that his wife and his daughter daughters' exp had on this evolution. do you believe it was a personal evolution or more of a political evolution and i know you are often heavily involved in politics where you look at the poll numbers especially how the poll numbers trend among young voters and think this is a smart political evolution actually. >> well, i think that the president has believed for a long time in full equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and i think his actions have shown that. rough in our imperfect country and system politics does play a role in it and i do think that while it was in 199 of the president then running for senate said that he was in favor of full equality, then he took a little different calculated turn and went in a different direction. but i think in his heart and the times i've spoken to him, i think that in his heart he has always believed this. and i think now he's made a calculation and, frankly, i believe this is going to be one of the major wedge issues against the republican party. i think there's a great deal of people, a great deal of republicans who really are in favor of marriage equality, are in favor of giving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people equal rights and are much more interested in the economy and national security and individual liberty for people. and i think the other part of the republican party, the anti-gay, christian part in particular, they're not going to be for him no matter what he says. >> interesting to see the polling. as we see the polls break down by democrat/republican you don't see that overwhelming support among republicans as a whole. i'll ask you to stand by. >> i'm not that -- i'm not that quite sure that i believe that much in the polling because, you know, this is -- we're a long way off and there's a lot of education to be done. i think the president is really going to step up and in the black church community in particular there's going to be a great deal of education and polling between now and six months from now can be entirely different. >> i agree with you on that. let's bring in tony perkins, the president of the family research council. tony, good morning. nice to see you, as always. thanks for talking to us. >> good morning. >> what's your reaction to what the president had to sayed. >> not completely surprised. finally his words are coming in sync with his actions. he as opposed the marriage amendments at the state level and refused to defend the defense of marriage act which is really the line that defends what the states have decided from the courts. so not really surprising. the timing is. i'm not sure that this is politically advantageous for him. but i'm sure that they looked at that. >> what do you mean by that? you have said you think this hands a victory in a way to governor mitt romney. how do you meaning? >> well, i wouldn't say it necessarily hands a victory. i would say there was probably two groups celebrating yesterday. i think those who are advocating to redefine marriage and some in the romney campaign were certainly celebrating because i think the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle when it comes to the enthusiasm issue when it comes to the romney campaign, that piece may have been handed to him by the president because clear it's very clear now there is a contrast on this key issue. now, i thought this election was going to be all about the economy and jobs, i think we're going to see another presidential election in which the issue of marriage is going to be front and center in the debate. >> you think this could push the economy off the front and focus on gay marriage? >> well, it's not going to go away completely but i do think the president interjeked it into the debate because he has staked out a clear position that is in contradiction to the position that mitt romney has had. mitt romney has testified before the congress for a federal marriage amendment and sign aid mrnlg saying as president he would work for and support a marriage amendment so it is, of course, obviously it's a very important issue in terms of social policy. >> well, technically -- >> i can't imagine it wouldn't be an issue. >> technically he's been all over the map on it, mitt romney. hasn't he? you go back to 1994. i know you know this in a letter to the log cabin club of massachusetts which is a group of gay republicans, he said, i'm more convinced than ever that as we seek to establish full equality for americans, america's gay and lesbian citizens i will provide for effective leadership by 2002, right? he said he would support equal rights for all americans. in office he said civil unions were good enough to satisfy a court decision that said denying marriage rights to gays was illegal. by 2005 he actually said he opposed civil union, wanted a constitutional amendment so he's kind of been all over the map on this. are you sure he's -- >> kind of like the president. the president has been all over the map on it too. he supported same-sex marriage back in the '90s then opposed to it when he ran for the senate and as president now coming out, again, his actions i think have said all along he's been for it. look, there's no question that mitt romney's record on a number of the key social issues but he has staked out very clear ground and made very public pledges on this and i think more so than what mitt romney says, although i think it's going to be important that he not run from this contrast which i don't think he will, but the president has made this an issue, not mitt romney and so i think it is going to play out in this election and it's going to, you know, what many were counting on, the angst over a second term of the president driving and fueling and energizing the conservative base, i think this is a part of that and i see it as this unfolds, i think that's exactly what will happen. >> explain to me -- >> look at the battleground states. what doesn't make political sense. if you count about 16 of the swing or battleground states, ten have marriage amendments already. one will have it on the ballot this fall and i think it's like 137 electoral votes coming from those states. you know, i don't think that's going to play well in those states for the president to say i don't care what you voted for. you may have decided for -- against same-sex marriage for traditional marriage. i'm not going to defend what you have done in this state and your state amendments can be overturned for all i care because i think they should. that will be in your face. >> i think he made it clear -- i thought his comments were clear he wouldn't be overturned. it could be decided state by state but i want to ask you a question -- >> other than by his inaction. >> what is your big argument against gay marriage? >> it's an argument for marriage. it's an argument for marriage. when we look at what the impact that policy, public policy has had on marriage, you know, we don't have to guess, we go back to the late '60s with the beginning of no fault divorce. when a government takes a policy position on marriage, it has an effect. >> yeah, like -- >> we've seen the consequences of that and have over 40% of children being born out of wedlock. we have a decline in marriage. rise in cohabitation. the social costs of that are tremendous. >> when government took a position -- but when government took a position, let's say, against the ban on interracial marriage it had an effect too, right? it brought legal marriage to blacks and whites -- >> you're talking about redefinition. there is no rational reason to keep people of different races that were of opposite sex to marry. they met the qualifications of the definition of marriage. what we're talking about here is a further redefinition of marriage. >> but hasn't marriage been redefined and redefined? >> it's going to intentionally create environments where you have children growing up without a mom and a dad. >> we have environments where children grow up. hetero -- >> forgive me for interrupting but have them already where they grow up without a mom or dad. you're certainly not arguing gay marriage is fine as long as the couples don't want to have kids because you will avoid that problem or an older couple who aren't going to have kids. >> there's no argument those things have occurred and that the state of marriage in this country is problematic. there's no argument there. what i'm saying, you look at the consequence, the cost do government as a result of that, the increased social cost. why woo we want to intentionally do more of that. the point here is public policy -- what we set doesn't mean that everybody is going to reach that standard but we should debt a standard that is best for society. we don't make public policy based on -- >> doesn't it follow culture? but it sounds to me like you're saying public policy sets culture. i would say culture maybe actually goes first and public policy follows when you're -- certainly if you're going to talk about equality and rights to sort of say, well, you know, i'm concerned about this issue, so we'll overlook the equal rights part of it. seems a little unfair at the least. >> well, it's not an issue of equal rights. everybody has the same rights, what we're -- >> how is it not -- >> and it goes -- >> let me stop you there. i want -- let me stop you. how is it not an issue of equal rights if a group can get married and another can't. >> you can't marry a close relative. you can't marry someone who is already married. everybody has restrictions on who they can marry in our society. this goes beyond the issue of marriage. this goes beyond as we've sen curriculum that is introduced into schools. i mean parents want to have a right over what their children are taught and parents lose their right to determine what values their children are instructed with. that are in contradiction to their religious convictions. so this goes way beyond just marriage. it goes to the employees and employer relationship. it goes to public facilities, so it's a much bigger issue than just two people who love each other and want to commit their lives to each other. they're free to do that. they just can't redefine marriage and try to bring with that all of the -- >> i think marriage has -- but hasn't marriage been redefined over and over and over in the 1800s, right, women were property of their husband. marriage has been redefined over time on that issue. in slave era black people could not marry each other. marriage has been redefined to say that actually black people can -- people are no longer slaves and blacks can marry. interracial marriage is now legal. that happened as recently as 1967. it was illegal when my parents got married. my dad is white, my mom is black. so marriage is always being redefined what is legal and under the law in marriage, right? >> now marriage is always been the union of a man and a woman. that has -- that definition has never changed over 5,000 years of human history. what we're talking about here is changing the very core definition of marriage. >> marriage has always been as someone has decided to define it and sometimes they change that definition. that definition has changed. marriage between a man and woman as long as they're white in some law, right, so i would disagree with you. >> never changed from a man and a woman. >> but the idea of marriage and the institution changes all the time. so the idea that somehow this is the first change to marriage, i think, you might be mistaken on it. >> no, i admitted it. we have changed the policy regarding the marriage, the example i used was in the issue of no fault divorce and the weakening of the marriage laws and what it has resulted in significant social cost and ramifications so these things should be evaluated very carefully before we make such a -- this is -- this would go beyond anything that's ever been done before as i said going back to the core definition of marriage always been between a man and a woman. >> we'll agree to disagree. tony perks, nice to have you on the show. appreciate it. we'll talk to richard socarides, a former senior adviser to president clinton. one of the highest ranking openly gay people to work in the federal government. helped draft don't ask, don't tell. he'll join us this. also ahead on "starting point," the tea party makes another starting play. now another veteran north is on notice. is there any room in the middle in the republican party? well, will anything get done in congress in all the moderates are booted? high school team gives up a shot at a title because they don't want to play with a girl. heading into talk about that. will cain, roland martin and rocker dee snider joins our panel this morning. pleased to have you. >> how are you doing. >> welcome. have a seat. >> say what? >> play this for dee, twisted sister. ♪ we won't take nothing from you ♪ ♪ your life is jaded man: okay, no problem. it's easy to get started; i can help you with the paperwork. um...this green line just appeared on my floor. yeah, that's fidelity helping you reach your financial goals. could you hold on a second? it's your money. roll over your old 401(k) into a fidelity ira and take control of your personal economy. this is going to be helpful. call or come in today. fidelity investments. turn here. actually it can. neutrogena® ultra sheer provides unbeatable uva uvb protection and while other sunscreens can feel greasy ultra sheer® is clean and dry. it's the best for your skin. ultra sheer®. neutrogena®. it's the best for your skin. recently, students from 31 countries took part in a science test. the top academic performers surprised some people. so did the country that came in 17th place. let's raise the bar and elevate our academic standards. let's do what's best for our students-by investing in our teachers. let's solve this. with these new depend real fit briefs,untry and today we are surprising pro football all stars. there's wes, clay and demarcus.what's up guys. now i know you don't need one, but would you try these on for charity and prove just how great the fit is? seriously? no way for charity? let's do it! yup... they're doin it. the best protection now looks, fits and feels just like underwear. let's go drive, use the legs... nice teamwork! they tried on the new depend real fit. get a free sample so you can too. welcome back. lots about partisan politics. a good example of gridlock to come. speaking with richard mourdock. vocal that republicans shouldn't cooperate but should confront. >> the ideas for which the parties are working are really at opposite ends of the spectrum. i don't think there will be a lot of successful compromise. hence you have the deadlock you have today. i hope to build a conservative majority in the united states senate so that bipartisanship becomes democrats joining republicans to roll back the size of government, reduce the bureaucracy, lower taxes and get america moving again. >> those comments may not bode well when you look at the fact that only 17% of the country is approving of the job that congress is doing and they cite as a large part of the problem partisanship. joining us this morning is congressman jim cooper of tennessee. a moderate blue dog democrat founding member of no labels, a group of democrats and republicans who say they have one goal, which is to make government work again. i think lots of us could support that goal. nice to see you. you heard mr. mourdock saying he thinks he doesn't support successful compromise. that it's not really possible. what do you think of that? >> soledad, what mourdock is saying is popular but it's very dangerous. you have to compromise in order to build a great nation. our nation was essentially founded on compromise and without that today we're going to lose our credit rating again, we're going to have more gridlock and really hurt our nation's status as the nation's only superpower. >> if i don't compromise what i can do is build my team bigger. i don't have to compromise. those will have to compromise to me by brings them to my side of the aisle is his argument. what areas do you think we'll need compromise on some of the biggest issues that the congress is dealing with right now. >> well, we've got to have a compromise on the budget issues which are crushing our economy and have to have compromise on defense issues. we've got to figure out how to right size the defense budget. virtually every area of government we have to have good people getting along and solving problems, not fighting each other. not a question of combat in washington but a question of getting things dong for voters back home working hard trying to put food on the table so fighting is very selfish and but mourdock is talking about is one-party rule. we've always had a two-party system in america. how we've gotten things done, a competition between the two parties. >> let's take a look at some folks vulnerable. senator orrin hatch obviously in the state of utah who is vulnerable. his challenger is dan littlenqut and ted cruise and he is being challenged with support from club for growth which is spending about roughly i think a million dollars in support for david dewhurst supporting there. if they're successful, if in fact you can be brought into congress on the philosophy, my way or the highway, what do you think is the risk? what happens at the end of it all? >> fortunately for the voters of indiana, they have a good centrist choice in joe donnelly who is running but in all these other states we've seen some of the finest states in america go down to defeat because they were not partisan extremists. i hope voters realize if they want to keep america strong we have to have enough folks in the middle to get things done. that's the way america has functioned throughout our 200-year history. we wouldn't even have washington, d.c. where it is today if we hadn't had a compromise between the states. virtually every major one was a result of compromise and we have to continue if we remain strong. >> seems to me this is missing the point. what are you -- >> why, thank you, will. >> what are you compromising towards