DOWNLOADS: (71)

PLAYS: (1736)

Embed

After saying that the Republican party needs to "stop being the stupid party" as part of his solution to revitalize the GOP after the beating they took in the last election, it seems Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has decided to double down on his own advice that the party is just not wingnutty enough. Bobby Jindal: Republicans Can Continue Discriminating Against Gays And Still Win Elections:

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) — a possible Republican candidate for president in 2016 — rejected former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s argument that conservatives must embrace marriage equality for gays and lesbians if they want to survive as a party and reiterated his support for “traditional marriage.”

“Look, I believe in the traditional definition of marriage,” Jindal said during an appearance on Meet The Press on Sunday, and went on to claim that Republicans don’t have to make the case on social issues to attract young voters and win future elections and instead should continue focusing on economic issues. “We lost [the 2012 election] because we didn’t present a vision showing how we believe the entire economy can grow, how people can join the middle class. We’re in aspirational party and we need policies that are consistant with that aspirational private sector growth.”

In an essay for The American Conservative entitled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” Huntsman — a Mormon whose previous support for civil unions set him apart from Republican presidential candidates in 2012 — argued that if the Republican Party wants to survive, it must enhance its appeal to gay Americans and the growing majority that supports marriage equality.

As the post at Think Progress noted, polls show most Americans now support marriage equality. Jindal and his ilk are determined to keep dragging us backwards.

DOWNLOADS: (183)

PLAYS: (1040)

Embed

Stephen Colbert told his audience Monday that like most conservatives, he's "long had respect for the Hispanic community, ever since they voted Barack Obama in for a second term" and said that was a "sobering moment" -- at least, it would be if he could stop drinking.

Colbert then opined that he thought Hispanics came to the United States to do the jobs that other Americans did not want to do, like voting for Mitt Romney, whose name he couldn't remember as usual, and he played footage of some of the political pundits out there, claiming that Hispanics should naturally be a part of their coalition. Colbert agreed.

COLBERT: Yes, Hispanic and Republicans go together like beans and very, very white rice... that is very suspicious of the beans. Now granted, we conservatives may have said a few things about immigrants in the past, but now that is just agua the Spanish word for bridge. Because Republicans have now reached out to a group they trust even less than Mexicans -- Democrats.

After showing the Republicans out there talking about their newfound embrace of immigration reform and the right wing pundits explaining how this is just going to make all of the racist statements in the past go away, Colbert made note of why they still might have some problems with those voters.

COLBERT: Yes, Republicans will take racism off the table, or have their bus boy do it. Either way it's gone.

After showing the yappers over at Fox attacking President Obama for coming out with his own plan and basically telling the President to sit down and shut up, Colbert got to the root of their problem and this recent pandering we've seen by Republicans.

COLBERT: Hispanic voters know that immigration reform is moving forward only because Republicans decided to quit blocking it. They're not going to give Obama credit for supporting it all along. That would be like passing a kidney stone and then thanking your doctor, instead of thanking the kidney stone for taking you on such a character building adventure of agony.

Colbert wound things up explaining that there is still another hitch for the GOP, which is actually following through and voting for any of this, which is the President's plan wanting to give visas for same-sex partners. As I already noted here, Harry Reid might have expressed some optimism (heaven forbid, as Colbert noted) for "treating gay people as people," but I don't share it. I don't see Republicans doing anything else but continuing to treat just about everyone other than old white men as second-class citizens if they think there's any political benefit in demonizing them.

DOWNLOADS: (442)

PLAYS: (733)

Embed

As Think Progress noted, you can add former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the list of political figures who have followed President Obama's lead and come out in favor of marriage equality this week.

Powell appeared on CNN's the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer this Wednesday and said he has "no problem with it" and did not see any reason that gay people should not be allowed to be married.

BLITZER: I remember you were chairman of the Joint Chiefs when you installed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the U.S. military that prevented gays from serving openly. I know you changed your attitudes over these years, but what about gay marriage? Are you with the president in supporting gay marriage?

POWELL: I have no problem with it and it was the Congress that imposed "don't ask, don't tell". It was certainly my position and my recommendation to get us out of an even worse outcome that could have occurred as you'll recall. But as I've thought about gay marriage I know a lot of friends who are individually gay, but are in partnerships with loved ones and they are stable a family as my family is and they raise children, and so I don't see any reason not to say that they shouldn't be able to get married under the laws of their state or the laws of the country however that turns out. It seems to be the laws of the state. There may be religious objections to it and I respect the fact that many denominations have different points of view with respect to gay marriage, and they can hold that in sanctity of their place of religion and not bless them or solemnize (ph) them.

But in terms of the legal matter of creating a contract between two people that's called marriage and allowing them to live together with the protection of law seems to me is the way we should be moving in this country. And so I support the president's decision, and I think most Americans increasingly understand that times have changed just like they change between gays in the military and while I was able to support removing that barrier to service. And so I hope everybody will just carefully look at this, and I understand the religious objections to it, but at the same --

(AUDIO GAP)

POWELL: -- diversity and change and my experience with many of my gay and lesbian friends is that they form unions as strong as any other unions I've seen and raise children that are good, strong children and are either heterosexual or homosexual, lesbian, depending on themselves, not because their parents happen to be.

DOWNLOADS: (380)

PLAYS: (865)

Embed

Andrea Mitchell invited civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis on her show this Thursday, and after opening the segment by showing his recent take-down of fellow Rep. Paul Broun on the House floor, for pushing an amendment that would have stripped funding for enforcement of Title V of the 1965 Civil Rights Act, Lewis spoke to Mitchell about how dangerous the recent efforts by Republicans to take our country backwards with are all of these voter suppression laws being passed in states across the country.

What I'm surprised they did not discuss are the recent efforts by the House Democrats to fight back against voter suppression:

Today, House Democrats did something really important. Something fundamental to our democracy. Today, House Democrats unveiled the Voter Empowerment Act - a legislation that would roll back many GOP state-sponsored efforts and laws to suppress the vote.

The bill will protect voters from restrictive voting measures that have been enacted in states across the country over the last year. These measures make it harder for millions of eligible voters to register or vote, and disproportionally affect our service members, the disabled, minorities, young people, seniors, and low-income Americans.

The bill will protect voters from restrictive voting measures that have been enacted in states across the country over the last year. These measures make it harder for millions of eligible voters to register or vote, and disproportionally affect our service members, the disabled, minorities, young people, seniors, and low-income Americans.

You can read more details on the bill in the link above. Mitchell also asked Lewis about President Obama's recent endorsement of gay marriage and as Think Progress reported, it looks like the numbers are starting to turn around on that issue in the African American community now as well: The Obama Effect: Growing Number Of African Americans Come Out For Marriage Equality:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (351)

PLAYS: (1939)

Embed

I'm not fond of Hilary Rosen being put out there as a pundit or a spokesperson for the Democratic side of the aisle for a whole lot of reasons, a good number of which can be read about in Susie's post here which lays out who she's worked for or represented. That said, when it comes to the issue of gay marriage, she was exactly right with her comments she made as a member of the panel on This Week over the weekend and her noting that "straight people don't need any help tearing down the institution of marriage."

I've got a co-worker that has been Jesus-ed into believing that gay people being allowed to get married might somehow interfere with him not being allowed to get divorced again and maybe remarried again, since he's on his second marriage now and is terribly frightened by those evil gay people are somehow breaking down the institution of marriage. And when you try to talk to him about it, it's about as productive as talking to a box of rocks. He's stuck and stubborn on his stance that gay people being allowed to get married is some sort of abomination.

My fellow liberals at work along with myself haven't had much luck with him, but I remain hopeful that more people making the points that Rosen did here will eventually get through to some of them even if we never manage to change my friend's views. The real damage to the institution of marriage has not been gay people wanting to get married. It's the number of divorces and broken families we've seen with straight couples. And as she noted, getting married, or serving in our military, which are issues the gay community has been pushing for where they would like to have equal rights, are what would normally be considered "conservative" issues or values.

If "conservatives" really cared about the so-called institution or marriage, they'd care more about the issue of divorce, which of course they will never do since they'd have to drive the majority of their members out of their party. They're much happier fear mongering and gay-bashing instead while ignoring the fact that they really don't care that much about the institution of marriage at all, unless it means their fellow citizens they'd like to discriminate against can't have access to it.

Transcript of the clip above below the fold.

Continue reading »

As I noted when Piers Morgan had Tony Perkins on his show on CNN this week, if someone is going to allow Tony Perkins on the air, they should be pointing out that his organization, the Family Research Council, has been labelled a hate group and why and not be allowing him to spew hatred towards the gay community unchallenged. This Thursday, Hardball's Chris Matthews did not point out the fact that his group has been labelled a hate group, but this interview was definitely a step in the right direction if he's going to be allowed on the air.

Here's more on that from Media Matters: MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Demonstrates How To Handle Tony Perkins On Television:

During the May 10 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews invited Tony Perkins – president of the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council (FRC) – and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to discuss the issues of same-sex marriage and adoption.

Perkins’ presence on MSNBC isn’t surprising – the hate group leader has become a regular guest on the network over the past several months, and has typically been treated as a credible, uncontroversial political figure, especially on Hardball.

On Thursday, however, things were different.

For nearly 15 minutes, Matthews, with the help of Frank, grilled Perkins on his views on homosexuality, marriage equality, and same-sex parenting. Matthews challenged Perkins’ anti-gay misinformation, held him accountable for past statements, and demonstrated how out-of-the-mainstream his extreme positions really are.

This is exactly the kind of interview that major news outlets should be conducting when dealing with someone like Perkins.

I'll second that. It was nice to see him put on the defensive for once instead of just being allowed to spew his bigoted talking points like he usually gets away with. This March, Matthews was confronted by the group Faithful America about legitimizing the likes of Perkins with the type of softball interviews we've seen from Matthews with him previously. It looks like maybe their talk with him did some good.

DOWNLOADS: (321)

PLAYS: (1135)

Embed

After the passage of the dreadful North Carolina Amendment One this Tuesday, CNN's Piers Morgan brought in the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins to discuss it. Why we can't seem to have a discussion in our corporate media on the topic of gay marriage or gay rights without someone giving this bigot some air time is beyond me, but if they're going to do it, they should be pointing out that his group has been designated as a hate group and why.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. It also works at the grassroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.” [...]

The FRC also strongly promotes the “ex-gay” movement as a way to combat LGBT civil rights measures, though professional organizations have repeatedly called so-called “reparative therapy” (which seeks to turn gays and lesbians into heterosexuals) into question and issued statements that don’t support it. For instance, the American Psychological Association issued a report in 2009 reviewing studies of “ex-gay” therapy. The report found that, “contrary to the claims of practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions,” according to Dr. Judith Glassgold, the lead author.

There's a lot more in their report and all of it ought to be hung around their necks for all to be made aware of any time someone from Perkins' organization comes on the air. Transcript below the fold where Perkins was again spreading the dangerous lie that people can choose their sexuality or that it's a result of the environment they've been brought up in.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (192)

PLAYS: (411)

Embed

Lawrence O'Donnell landed the first interview with Missouri Rep. Zach Wyatt, who decided to do the right thing and "come out" in more ways than one in opposing the homophobic House Bill 2051, which has rightfully been labelled the "don't say gay" bill which would prohibit any discussion of sexual orientation in public schools.

Here's more from The Kansas City Star on Wyatt's decision to openly oppose the bill -- Missouri lawmaker Wyatt comes out, denounces state's 'don't say gay' bill:

After deciding this year would be his last in the Missouri General Assembly, Zach Wyatt says he wanted to do something truly meaningful. He just didn’t know what.

But when news broke last month about a bill pushed by his fellow Republicans that would restrict discussion of sexual orientation in public schools — dubbed the "don't say gay" bill — Wyatt finally knew what he had to do.

On Wednesday, he publicly announced for the first time that he is gay. According to the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, a national group that works to elect gay, bisexual and transgendered people to public office, Wyatt is now the only openly gay Republican currently serving in a state legislature in the United States.

“I will not lie to myself anymore about my own sexuality,” said Wyatt, a first-term state representative, at a news conference in the Capitol. “Today I ask you to stand with me as a proud Republican, a proud veteran and a proud gay man who wants to protect all kids.”

The decision was not easy, he admitted. Wyatt, 27, grew up in Novinger, a rural town in northern Missouri with fewer than 500 residents. He lives just 10 miles away in Green Castle, where he raises cattle.

All throughout school he faced bullying for his weight and for “not always being perceived as the most masculine of men,” he recalled. Although he probably always knew he was gay, he said he was never able to truly accept it.

Progress Missouri has been following this issue closely and they posted the entire press conference O'Donnell highlighted a portion of here -- Bipartisan coalition calls for leaders to withdraw HB2051.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (389)

PLAYS: (2921)

Embed

As Raw Story's Stephen Webster noted, on the heels of a recent study which found that "people who have negative feelings toward homosexuality often have secret attractions to the same sex — and are more likely to have grown up in households that forbid homosexual feelings," we have Thom Hartmann asking about that very topic during this interview with the leader of an anti-gay organization which the SPLC has designated as a hate group.

Hartmann confronts anti-gay leader: Do closeted gays run your movement?:

On Russia Today TV’s The Big Picture Thursday, progressive radio host Thom Hartmann confronted Family Research Institute chairman Dr. Paul Cameron and asked him an unusually pointed question: “Does it concern you that many of your colleagues in the anti-gay movement may actually be closeted gays?”

“Um, no,” Cameron replied. “Very few of them are homosexually interested. First of all, um… Most people are not interested in homosexuality. There’s not at all. A few homosexuals like to say — and they’ve been saying this now for at least the last seven years — almost everybody is bisexual, maybe some homosexual…”

“I’ve never heard anybody say that,” Hartmann replied.

Cameron went on to claim that biologist Alfred Kinsey, whose groundbreaking research pioneered the study of human sexuality, “was gay” and “pushed that idea,” making his scientific findings somehow less valid. “Most of the homosexual leadership… have pushed that idea,” he added. “But it’s not true!”

Cameron didn’t provide any source or research to support his claim, so interested viewers may just have to take his word for it. Read on...

Here's more from the Southern Poverty Law Center on Cameron:

Continue reading »

I'm not some big fan of MSNBC regular Jonathan Capehart because frankly the man regularly just glosses over or minimizes just how crazy the Republican Party has become these days and chalks a lot of it up to just politics as usual, when I don't think there's anything normal about how far the GOP has fallen off the cliff to the right, but the treatment he received by both host Joe Scarborough and guest New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on this Thursday's edition of Morning Joe just sickened me.

As most people who visit this site probably already know, Gov. Christie vetoed the gay marriage bill in New Jersey and that ended up being the main topic of discussion during this segment. When Capehart tried to pin Christie down about why he thought it was acceptable to put a civil rights issue up for referendum with the voters, he ended up being bullied and talked over and interrupted by both Christie and Scarborough.

Christie is trying to have it both ways with this debate and deflect how rotten it is that he had a chance to single-handedly give a group of people in New Jersey the right to be married by signing that bill into law, and blamed his decision on the Democrats, because they claimed that a majority of people in his state wanted it, while not wanting it subjected to the will of the voters. So naturally it's all their fault because he had no other choice than to decide to try to prove them wrong instead of doing the right thing. He also tried to claim that both he and President Obama have the same stance on gay marriage.

When Capehart attempted to explain that that's not true since Obama has instructed his Justice Department not to defend DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act and that he has never issued any veto threats if the Congress would actually pass a law allowing gay marriage, Christie decided it was best to just talk over him and hammer him about what Obama's stance is on gay marriage. I'll give Capehart credit for this much though and that is he got Christie to admit that civil rights should not have been put up for a vote a half century ago. He didn't have that same luck trying to get him to relate that struggle to those wanting marriage equality for the LGBT community today.

Continue reading »