DOWNLOADS: (207)

PLAYS: (1410)

Embed

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart had a field day with the opponents of gay marriage at this week's Supreme Court hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act, starting with Paul Clement, the lawyer hired by House Republicans, who was called out by Justice Elena Kagan when he attempted to make the claim that the law wasn't based on bigotry.

After playing some of the back and forth between Clement and Kagan, Stewart gave the audience a reminder of just what the House Republicans sounded like back in 1996, before playing the audio of Kagan reading from the actual House report which said "Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." As Stewart noted, "with moral arguments no longer available to opponents of same-sex marriage, what's left for the conservatives to argue?"

Cue the idiocy of Justice Scalia, who made this ridiculous claim:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Cooper, let me — let me give you one — one concrete thing. I don’t know why you don’t mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s – there’s considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

As Stewart rightfully noted in the segment, no, there's not.

And then there was Justica Alito's equally ridiculous remark that the issue of gay marriage is "newer than cellphones or the Internet."

STEWART: No, we want you to step in and render a decision based on whether it's right, fair and just under the Constitution, having nothing to do with its "newness" and what you think might happen. Which by the way, what do you think might happen? That they'll discover letting two ladies get married is going to rip open a hole in the ozone layer? And I've got news for you. Gay marriage will definitely cause less national harm than cell phones or the Internet.

But here's the thing that we're pretty sure you don't have to do. You don't have to beta test rights. Black people have only been here fifty years. I mean, let's see how the Netherlands does with them before we lift some barriers.

Stewart did have one hope that the justices might be moved by one thing though, and that's the "mother f**king injustice" of Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the case, being forced to pay estate taxes and their concern "about the heartbreak, that is double taxation."

DOWNLOADS: (153)

PLAYS: (1576)

Embed

Evan Wolfson, the founder of the one of the country's top same sex marriage advocacy groups, on Sunday assured Family Research Council President Tony Perkins that "the gay people are not going to use up all the marriage licenses" if the Supreme Court strikes down marriage discrimination.

CBS host Bob Schieffer asked a Face the Nation panel if it would make more sense to drop the same sex marriage bans and allow churches to decide if they wanted to include gay and lesbian couples.

"And then various churches could define what they thought marriage was," Schieffer explained. "And gay people, other people could choose the church that fit their particular beliefs."

"If you want to talk about rights, let's talk about those rights that have been lost in the wake of same sex marriage," Perkins argued. "And religious freedom has 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 D.C. You've got parental rights that have been lost, parents no longer being able to determine what their children are taught, whose moral values they are taught in school. We have small businessmen losing their rights because they won't participate in same sex ceremonies. So you talk about rights, let's talk about rights."

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (272)

PLAYS: (8849)

Embed

In a heated confrontation on Sunday, lesbian Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen shot down Faith and Freedom Coalition Chairman Ralph Reed after he argued that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation.

During a NBC panel discussion about the Supreme Court's decision to consider the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Reed suggested that current polls in favor of same sex marriage did not matter because 31 state elections had backed "traditional marriage," while only three had affirmed marriage equality.

"The issue before the country is, do we have a compelling interest in strengthening and supporting the durable, enduring and uniquely complementary and procreative union of a man and a woman?" the conservative activist asked. "And by the way, the reason why is it's better for children, and all the social science shows that."

NBC host David Gregory pointed out that the American Academy of Pediatrics has said that marriage was in the best interest of children living with same sex parents.

"Ralph raises a point that we cannot ignore," Rosen observed. "Which is the rationale that the opposition is putting before the Supreme Court, the only difference between a gay couple and a married straight couple that gets benefits from the federal government is that one has accidental procreation. I think that would be a surprise to a lot of infertile heterosexual couples."

"Well, that's not really a fair characterization," Reed insisted.

"Of course it is," Rosen shot back. "That's the point you just made, which is the point of marriage is procreation. That's not the point of marriage. The point of marriage is love and commitment."

"What I said is the verdict of social science is overwhelming and irrefutable," Reed said, refusing to look at at Rosen, who is a same sex parent. "And that is without regard to straight or gay -- in other words, this applies to one-parent households, it applies to foster homes, it applies to the whole panoply. They have looked at them all, that the enduring, loving, intact biological mother and father is best for children and it's not even a close call. And the only issue before the court is there a social good to that and does the government have a legitimate issue in protecting and strengthening. That's the only issue."

"We're going to dispute on the science," Rosen replied.

DOWNLOADS: (55)

PLAYS: (180)

Embed

The president of a conservative organization which opposes rights for LGBT people on Sunday rejected the notion that public opinion now supports marriage equality because "the polls are skewed."

Speaking to American Values President Gary Bauer, Fox News host Chris Wallace wondered if conservatives should oppose the federal government interfering in states' rights by refusing to recognize the legal marriages of LGBT Americans.

"I don't think so," Bauer insisted. "A lot of people are changing their mind because there's been a full-court blitz by the popular culture, by elites, by all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people and to no longer defend marriage as being between a man and a woman."

"Quite frankly, the argument that the public is overwhelmingly in favor of same sex marriage is ludicrous," he continued. "If it was so obvious that the American public wants to try a radical social experiment that results in children in those households definitely -- definitely not having a mother and a father, that's what makes marriage a special institution. It guarantees that children have mothers and fathers. If the opinion of the American public was so overwhelming, the gay rights movement and their allies like Nicole [Wallace] would not be asking the Supreme Court to say to the America people, 'You have no say on this issue.'"

Wallace pointed out that a recent Washington Post poll found that 58 percent of Americans agreed that same sex marriage should be legal, and 70 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 39 supported equal marriage rights.

"Do you worry that this only puts the Republican Party further out of touch?" Wallace pressed Bauer.

"No, I'm not worried about it because the polls are skewed," the former Family Research Council president replied. "Just this last November, four states -- four liberal states -- voted on this issue. My side lost those votes, but my side had 45, 46 percent of the vote in all four of those liberal states. In fact, those marriage amendments that would keep marriage for a man and woman outran Mitt Romney in those four liberal states by an average of five points."

DOWNLOADS: (115)

PLAYS: (973)

Embed

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sunday suggested that implementing a flat tax could assuage gay and lesbian Americans who want equal marriage rights because straight marriages would not get a tax break.

During an interview on Fox News, host Chris Wallace pointed out that the Supreme Court would be hearing arguments this week on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevents the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages even in states where those unions are legal.

"Would you strike down that as federal interference in a state matter," Wallace asked the libertarian senator.

"You know, I think it's a really complicated issue," Paul asserted. "I've always said the states have the right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage. Kentucky's decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite direction, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this."

"I think there is a chance that the court could strike down the federalization part [of DOMA]," he continued. "If they do, I think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue. And I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in, but I also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue."

"You know the tax code -- I'm for a flat income tax, and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code."

DOWNLOADS: (150)

PLAYS: (918)

Embed

With hearings underway this week in Minnesota on legalizing same-sex marriage, having passed both Senate and House committees, at least one former GOP lawmaker has had a change of heart.

Video by The Uptake.

Lynne Osterman who was elected as a Republican to the Minnesota legislature says [she] regrets casting a "political expedient" vote for Minnesota's "Defense of Marriage" law that outlawed same-sex marriage. She tears up when talking about it and urges Minnesota lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage.

Full transcript below.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (78)

PLAYS: (266)

Embed

Conservative columnist George Will suspects that the Supreme Court could support equal rights for LGBT people because "quite literally the opposition to gay marriage is dying... it's old people."

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced that it would take up cases on California's Prop 8 same sex marriage ban and the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies benefits to gay and lesbian spouses.

Will on Sunday suggested that it was not a coincidence that the court decided to hear the cases just a month after voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington backed marriage equality.

"It could make them say, 'It's not necessary for us to go here,'" Will explained. "They don't want to do what they did with abortion. The country was having a constructive accommodation on abortion, liberalizing abortion laws. The court yanked the subject out of democratic discourse and embittered the argument."

He continued: "On the other hand, they can say it's now safe to look at this because there is something like an emerging consensus. Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying... it's old people."

Republican strategist Mary Matalin, who has previously said that marriage equality is not a civil right, asserted that polls now show Americans support same sex marriage because they know it's not a "threat to the civil order."

"Well, because Americans have common sense," she explained. "There are important constitutional, biological, theological, ontological questions relative to homosexual marriage. People who live in the real world say, the greater threat to the civil order are the heterosexuals who don’t get married and are making babies. That’s an epidemic in crisis proportions. That is irrefutably more problematic for our culture than homosexuals getting married."

DOWNLOADS: (4272)

PLAYS: (495)

Embed

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Sunday accused President Barack Obama of essentially breaking his oath office by refusing to "faithfully execute" U.S. laws.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires each president to recite the following oath before taking office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

During an interview on CNN, host Candy Crowley asked Santorum to respond to an Obama administration policy that would halt the deportations of certain young undocumented immigrants.

"You need to hammer the president on this now habitual abuse of power, saying that he's not going to defend the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]," the former candidate explained. "You know, 'I'm not even going to go to the Supreme Court and stand up for the law that, you know, I'm charged as the chief executive to do.' So you're seeing a pattern where the president says, 'I'm going to pick and choose what laws I'm going to enforce, what laws I'm going to stand up and fight for in court.' That is not the job of the president."

"There's a difference between saying, 'I don't like the law, I wish the law were different, but I'm the president. My job is to faithfully execute.' And he has not faithfully executed," Santorum added.

As for Mitt Romney's position on immigration, the former Pennsylvania senator said that the Republican presidential candidate was trying to "walk a line as not to sound like he's hostile to Latinos."

DOWNLOADS: (232)

PLAYS: (1291)

Embed

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins found himself in an awkward situation on Thursday when one CNN host insisted he explain why "homosexuals bother you so much."

When Perkins agreed to appear on CNN to hype his press conference supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, he probably didn't expect host Brooke Baldwin to make the conversation personal.

"Everyone has the right to opine," Baldwin told Perkins. "But my question is more on a personal level to you: Have you ever been to the home of a married, same sex couple?"

"I have not been to the home of a married, same sex couple, no," Perkins admitted.

"If you were ever to do so and you were sitting across from them over dinner, how would you convince them that their life together -- either two men, two women -- hurts straight couples?" the CNN host wondered.

"That's not how we make public policy," Perkins replied. "Certainly there are some same sex couples that are probably great parents, but that's not what the overwhelming amount of social science shows us. And we've got some great single moms that are doing great jobs and we applaud them and encouraged them, but we still know that the best environment for a child is with a mom and a dad."

"I know you don't want to answer the personal questions, but I'm going to try again," Baldwin pressed. "Why do -- you've never been to the home of a same sex couple -- why do homosexuals bother you so much?"

"They don't bother me," Perkins insisted. "I'm not going to be silent while they try to redefine marriage in this country, change policy, what my children are taught in schools and what religious organizations can do. I'm not going to be silent, nor are millions of other Christians across this country."

"We don't have a dislike for homosexuals," he added. "They don't have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us, they don't have a right to take away my religious freedom, they don't have a right to step between me and what my child is taught. That's what's happening."

(h/t: Mediaite)

DOWNLOADS: (118)

PLAYS: (198)

Embed

TV preacher Pat Robertson is blasting President Barack Obama as a "shameless panderer" for his support of equal marriage rights for same sex couples.

Appearing on ABC's The View on Tuesday, Obama spoke about his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which imposes a federal ban on same sex marriage.

"Congress is clearly on notice that I think it's a bad idea," Obama said. "This is going to be a big contrast in the campaign because you've got Governor [Mitt] Romney saying we should actually have a constitutional amendment installing the notion that you can't have same sex marriages."

During Tuesday's edition of CBN's The 700 Club, Robertson responded by declaring that Obama's position was "enough to make you sick at your stomach."

"The bottom line is a male is equipped in a particular fashion and a female is equipped in a particular fashion," Robertson explained. "The union of two men doesn't bring forth anything except disease, apparently, and suffering. And the same thing of the union of two women."

"It's a holy union ordained of God and for these politicians to make it a political football, it makes you sick," the televangelist continued. "Obama is a shameless panderer to special interests, and this campaign is enough to make you sick at your stomach."

"He's losing in the polls and The New York Times shows he down to Romney, and Romney is going ahead. More and more people say, 'Look, this president is, you know, he's playing every card known to man but he's not playing the right one.' ... As long as he plays with these tangential issues, he's going to lose."

On Monday, Robertson gave presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney his most vocal endorsement yet -- even though CBN lists the candidate's religion as a cult.

“Looks like the people who were worried about his Mormonism, that crowd is diminishing somewhat,” Robertson remarked. “The question is if you have two candidates, you don’t have Jesus running against somebody else. You have Obama running against Romney.”

(h/t: Right Wing Watch)