Barack Obama | Carrie Prejean | Joy Behar | News | Sandra Bernhard | Ted Haggard

Fran Drescher, Aisha Tyler, and Sandra Bernhard join Joy Behar to discuss Carrie Prejean's Sex Tape, Gay Rights, and Ted Haggard

Behar

Fran Drescher, Aisha Tyler, and Sandra Bernhard join Joy Behar to discuss Carrie Prejean's sex tape, Obama, gay rights, marriage equality, the down-low, and Ted Haggard

Deliciously bitchy.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Loved Sandra and Fran. I don't think Aisha had very much to contribute on these topics. (And I'd love to see where in the bible it says anything about masturbation and furry palms!)

    Posted by: sparks | Nov 6, 2009 7:48:04 AM


  2. I am tired of hearing shit like Tyler's 'he has a lot on his plate' or we need 'to be patient' crap. OK Aisha, until we get our rights lets make it against the law for you to marry your white husband, and see how 'patient' you are bitch.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Nov 6, 2009 8:20:03 AM


  3. I used to like Aisha Tyler, but she's a dunce on this topic. After pointing out that she has a mixed marriage she tells gays to be patient, it will happen in our lifetimes. Gurrrrl, we've talkin' about this before you were born- it's no longer about patience. Get some gays in ur life; you NEED 'em!

    Posted by: stephen | Nov 6, 2009 8:47:32 AM


  4. @ SPARKS

    It was a joke. Get a sense of humor; it's free. Aisha is a vocal advocate for gay rights.

    Obama has never been in favor of gay marriage. He made it clear during the campaign that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    We should take a lesson from Washington State.

    Posted by: Joey | Nov 6, 2009 9:13:02 AM


  5. Apartheid is defined as different laws for different classes of people. End apartheid in the US NOW!

    Posted by: AJ | Nov 6, 2009 9:21:36 AM


  6. I <3 these wymyn.

    Posted by: Baby Jane | Nov 6, 2009 9:32:11 AM


  7. Joy rocks so hard. I'm so glad she has a show that I can watch without Hassleback tainting it for me.

    Posted by: Scott | Nov 6, 2009 9:59:21 AM


  8. Joey, wrong. When Obama ran for the Illinois Senate back in 1996, he was in favor of same sex marriage. The Windy City Times has the proof from his candidate questionnaire in that '96 state senate race and published it after the Presidential election. He flipped his position after the segregationist civil unions became on option.

    Posted by: Craig | Nov 6, 2009 10:20:11 AM


  9. We should take a lesson from Washington State.

    Posted by: Joey

    JOEY is 100% correct. The push for EQUAL Civil Unions was taken over by FAR LEFT GAYS who got caught up on the word MARRIAGE.

    First you get Federal Civil Union rights.
    Then you have the word MARRIAGE removed from Heterosexual Civil Unions. THEN PRESTO - EQUAL.

    If we keep going after the word MARRIAGE - which is a sacrament (sacred) in most religions then WE LOSE.

    But -- gays are self defeating sadly and allowed the radical left to take this over.

    AND --- I am old enough to remember in the early 90's that the push was for CIVIL UNIONS and was VERY PISSED by 1993 when the far left started the GAY MARRIAGE push.

    So here we are 16 years later.

    I have been married and divorced in Massachusetts while the rest of the gay Americans wait for the chance.

    Posted by: RJP3 | Nov 6, 2009 10:34:02 AM


  10. Craig you are the stupid Far Left dolts I speak of.

    Posted by: RJP3 | Nov 6, 2009 10:34:55 AM


  11. Ah, the mythical "far left gays". Too funny.

    Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Nov 6, 2009 10:40:18 AM


  12. RJP3, if you mean I'm not an Uncle Tom willing to accept tenth class citizenship enshrined into law, you are correct. You can't compromise on fundamental human rights. What if the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's had done that? What if the government passed out little color coded cards that you cannot discriminate against blacks if their skin color is a certain hue or lighter, but you can if their skin is too dark? You think that would have been acceptable?

    You can complain about the strategy. Hell I do too. Approaching this in a state-by-state fashion is not only wrong, but has been woefully ineffective. Our movement should have patterned itself after the CSM rather than re-inventing the wheel. African-Americans didn't fight on a state-by-state basis for equality, they did it nationally. We should too.

    In fact if you look at interracial marriage, a plurality (not majority) of Americans did not approve of interracial marriage until 1994. Think about that. It wasn't until Bill Clinton was in office that more Americans approved of interracial marriage than disapproved yet interracial marriage had been legal in all 50 states since 1967. Interracial marriage was fought for through the courts, not the ballot box because if it have been through the ballot box, it would have lost miserably. Moreover, compromising on calling the union of a white and a black a marriage wouldn't have changed the opposition many had to such relationship any more than using the term civil unions has or will. The right wing hates us and will oppose us whether it is called marriage or civil unions. Ultimately compromising on the term emboldens the bigots and allows those that should be more forceful in their support of us (eg. Obama) less likely to be supportive instead opting for the segregationist option.

    Posted by: Craig | Nov 6, 2009 11:38:14 AM


  13. Great interview. Love it. I need to start recording her show. Joy kicks ass.

    Oh and to RJP3 you can take your "far left" label and shove it up your ass.

    Posted by: Tralfaz | Nov 6, 2009 12:13:10 PM


  14. I agree wholeheartedly with Craig...my only critique is to point out that if this battle were to be fought today in the Supreme Court, we would lose. And when the Supreme Court decides to thrown down our fight and say we don't have a right to marry then we lose...and we lose big time and for a long time.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    I don't like a state-by-state effort and I certainly don't think that is the end of the road in terms of strategy. BUT I do think that winning battleground efforts like in VT, NH, Iowa and MA - we strengthen our allies, legitimize our purpose and people feel more comfortable standing up for it because it isn't an abstract concept anymore. It seems MUCH more real now that there are thousands of gay couples who are legally married in their home states. That is why California and Maine are so disappointing.

    I want this to go to the Supreme Court and have a decision be handing down like in Loving v. Virginia or Lawrence v. Texas. BUT I am not sure the current Supreme Court is the one to do it.

    Posted by: Sam | Nov 6, 2009 12:22:31 PM


  15. It will take 3 to 5 years for the Olsson-Boies case and/or the Massachusetts/GLAD case to reach the Supreme Court as both haven't even been heard at trial at the district court level. After trial, you have time for the court to issues its opinion, you have the appeals process to the Appeals Court, the Appeals Court hearing, the time for the Appeals Court to issue its opinion(s), motions for the case to be reheard by the full Appeals Court en banc, the enbac hearing, the issuance of the en banc Appeals Court Opinions all before the case is likely to be heard before the Supreme Court. The Court in 2013, 2014, 2015 is likely be to be different than the Court today. Scalia and Kennedy, both in their 70's, could be gone, though I think Kennedy might be swayed to our side on this issue given his opinions in Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas. He's not an ideologue like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

    Posted by: Craig | Nov 6, 2009 1:04:29 PM


  16. "I want this to go to the Supreme Court and have a decision be handing down like in Loving v. Virginia or Lawrence v. Texas."

    It already did in 1972 in a case called Baker v. Nelson. To give you the short version, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, saying that same-sex marriage was not a constitutional issue.

    Posted by: Milton Quaffalot | Nov 6, 2009 1:30:42 PM


  17. Fran Drescher seems like a nice person working to advance equality, but it's still hard to take seriously any celebrity who starts talking about their close relationship with the Dalai Lama and their efforts to spread his message through, of all things, The View.

    Sandra Bernhard was clearly biting her tongue for much of that chat. Or they cut her mike.

    Posted by: Paul R | Nov 6, 2009 4:39:17 PM


  18. That Sandra Burnhard gets better looking with age

    Posted by: Ugabooga | Nov 7, 2009 1:07:05 AM


  19. @ Paul R: This isn't the View, it's Joy Behar's HLN talk show, which is a decidedly less lame media outlet than the View. And while it's fine to find quoting the Dalai Lama a little grating, I think that's the first moment any of these women actually said anything with any weight during this segment. It may seem a little schmaltzy or easy, but it's also the bottom line.

    Posted by: Vanity Feral | Nov 7, 2009 12:15:41 PM


  20. I used to think Sandra Bernhard could be quite funny, but after her claims to wish to see Sarah Palin gang-raped by a gang of black men......she's pretty disgusting. That was racist, mean-spirited, and offensive in all kinds of ways.

    Posted by: JT | Nov 8, 2009 6:27:49 PM


  21. Lakeshore Theater in Chicago proudly presents Sandra Bernhard! The New York Times has called her,“…a living, breathing bonfire,” and even after 25 years, her flame has yet to go out. Sandra Bernhard has had quite a diversified career as a comedian, singer, actress and author. Starting February 11th and running till the 14th, you can see Sandra live. Visit us as www.lakeshoretheater.com for more information and get your tickets now.

    Posted by: Dannah | Jan 27, 2010 6:34:53 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Referendum 71 Approved in Washington State« «