Comments

  1. Steve says

    Yes, they were intolerant. Just look at the Congressional record when DOMA was passed. It says so in black and white.

    And Obama was for marriage equality when he was a Senator. Then he had higher ambitions and was ambiguous about it for political reasons. Arguably too long in his first term. But once he got re-elected and had nothing to lose anymore, he was his true self again.

  2. Moony says

    ‘Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’

    -House Report on DOMA mentioned during SCOTUS case by Justice Kagan.

    So, the answer to Mr. DeMint’s statement is a resounding “YES. EXACTLY.”

  3. pedro says

    Umm…Obama “evolved” before his reelection. Of course, he was never really against marriage equality…just a lying politician like all the rest. I do realize that since his election in 2008 we have gone from DADT to gays openly serving in the military, from DOMA to federal recognition of marriage and just a couple of states to now 13 with marriage equality. He cannot get most of the credit but do not underestimate the power of the bully pulpit that a President possesses. And Obama by and large has been the most gay friendly President in U.S. history.

    Just think back to Bill Clinton selling us out for votes and then George W. using us as a boogie man to scare up conservative votes and appreciate how incredible Obama has been on gay issues.

  4. Gerry says

    I find this new attempt at a narrative by Chris Christie and now Ralph Reed that “Justice Kennedy implied that Congress and specifically Bill Clinton, etc. are bigots” is just infuriating. My answer… YES, THEY WERE. Here is the deal Chris and Ralph… if someone takes action to take away someone’s rights for whatever reason, they are being bigoted. Period. Case closed. Doesn’t matter the political calculus behind the action. And guess what, that was then… they have atoned. What’s your excuse for your actions TODAY.

  5. petensfo says

    Do these conservatrons all get a morning update of buzz-tags for the days press moments?

    They are all trying to hitch Bill Clinton to their wagon, even though the former Prez has stated numerous times that DOMA was a deal with the devil in order to prevent even more onerous legislation from being passed.

    Maddow has certainly nailed the summary of their position. It’s also frustrating when no media asks all these Xtian folks if they’re ready to incorporate all the rules of other religions into law as well. Yeah, didn’t think so…

  6. anon says

    Obama was in favor of gay marriage before his reelection.

    Opposition to gay marriage has long been a bit of political pandering in favor of discrimination by politicians from both sides of the issue. No politician really gives a crap one way or the other, they just like pandering. Joe Biden was pandering to Catholics and Obama to black evangelicals.

    Who is resuscitating Ralph Reed’s career? He escaped a long prison sentence by the skin of his teeth. What is he doing back on TV? It would be like having Bernie Madoff a guest on Suse Orman’s show.

  7. Gerry says

    @anon… yeah, I was thinking the same thing about Ralph Reed… but you already know they have an answer for that… it’s the “America loves to forgive” narrative… and this is from the same people who also love the death penalty…

  8. Bruno says

    @pedro: Fair enough, but Clinton and Obama are products of their times. If Obama had been president in 1996, you can be damned sure he’d have signed DOMA. And if Clinton were president now, he’d be at least as good on LGBT issues as Obama. It’s all politics, right or wrong.

  9. JONES says

    Ralph smarmy Reed tried to run for Lt Governor of Georgia in 2006 after Madoff. He is the model Christofascist and he’s damn fortunate that Rachael Maddow is too polite to not call him out on his bigotry on National television. Pat Robertson ring a bell Ralph?
    Ralph Reed quoting ‘social science’ to deny LGBT marriage equality is so very laughable.
    Ralph Reed & science … ask him how old the Earth is.

  10. melvin says

    Seruiously, @JONES ! There is no room on the Sunday shows for Bill McKibben, James Hansen, Tim DeChristoper, Assange, Snowden, on and on. But there is plenty for this imbecilic turd because he’s wearing a crucifix. He knows nothing about anything, but is considered an authority by the media because he is on speed dial.

  11. melvin says

    Just in case there’s some frackin misunderstanding, I believe in the mysteries and nothing else. Christianity is the enemy now as it always has been.

  12. AngelaChanning says

    When the religious right bring up the argument about marriages existing for the purpose of children, they never advocate that couples without children should have their marriages dissolved after X years, or anyone over 50 getting married should not be allowed. They also gloss over the history is marriage is based on the merging of property and families, hence the system of dowries and arranged marriages.

  13. Do Me says

    There were two reasons to support DOMA:

    1) You were a bigot.

    2) Your political balls were in a vice, and you didn’t have the ability, courage, moral strength, or political independence to stand up to the bigots.

    That’s it.

    I think it’s pretty easy to tell who stood where.

    There are ZERO logically objective, morally justifiable reasons to be opposed to equality.

  14. pedro says

    @Bruno — I completely disagree with your estimation that were Bill President today he would have had the courage of his convictions…From everything we know about Clinton he is a political compromiser…He seems to have a desperate need to be the cool kid everyone likes…Mr. Popular. And had Hillary won in 2008 he would be right there whispering sweet compromises in her ear. He would be telling her to stick with cilvil unions…don’t rock the boat. And she certainly would not have come out for marriage before the ’12 elections. It would be a totally different atmosphere right now. Civil unions would still seem like the progressive consensus position and Hills would not go after DOMA and make Billy boy look bad the way Obama did by refusing to defend it in court.

    If Hillary runs in ’16 I will probably vote for her…but make no mistake about it…had she won in ’08 the progress we have made in the last 5 years would not be what it has been…IMHO

  15. says

    Yes, Ralph. Bill Clinton and all the Senators and Congressmen you named were either acting on their own anti-gay bigotry or pandering to anti-gay bigots in their states or districts. That’s just a fact. And yes, Obama was afraid of confronting those bigots until 14 months ago (or whenever it was). Yes, yes, yes. Fortunately many of those folks have changed their minds or at least finally grown a spine. others can just read the polls and are following the constituents in supporting equal rights for all Americans.

  16. says

    I haven’t watched the whole segment, but I hope the wonderful Ms. Maddow pointed out that the data show that two parents are best. Two of any sex. Does NOT require a heteronym active family.

  17. Factoids says

    Because white gay men may not be used to this argument let me translate it for you as a black gay guy who has heard this over race:

    What they are really saying when they say “Christians are victims” is that “We are losing our privileged position in society.”

    They are right. This isn’t a bad thing.

    Precisely for the reasons that Rachel states. Black people aren’t going anywhere. Neither are gays.

    The real issue is the bigot needs to come to terms with their lose of power over us- whether for race or sexual orientation.

    Some of them won’t. Many as time goes on will- although they will remember it differently. Just like many elderly White people suddenly were not a part of the majority that supported Jim Crow. Just like the Dixiecrats were not a trying to push Jim Crow.

    It will happen with gays too. There won’t ever be a point where you are going to end this debate completely.

    What will happen is that you will simply have to worry a little less about it. Although as Zimmerman demonstrates- a sense of space is always an issue for those who are privileged.

    You aren’t going to ever completely change that. What you can do is realize what’s happening and realize they are right- they are losing power. That’s a good thing.

  18. Factoids says

    Because white gay men may not be used to this argument let me translate it for you as a black gay guy who has heard this over race:

    What they are really saying when they say “Christians are victims” is that “We are losing our privileged position in society.”

    They are right. This isn’t a bad thing.

    Precisely for the reasons that Rachel states. Black people aren’t going anywhere. Neither are gays.

    The real issue is the bigot needs to come to terms with their lose of power over us- whether for race or sexual orientation.

    Some of them won’t. Many as time goes on will- although they will remember it differently. Just like many elderly White people suddenly were not a part of the majority that supported Jim Crow. Just like the Dixiecrats were not a trying to push Jim Crow.

    It will happen with gays too. There won’t ever be a point where you are going to end this debate completely.

    What will happen is that you will simply have to worry a little less about it. Although as Zimmerman demonstrates- a sense of space is always an issue for those who are privileged.

    You aren’t going to ever completely change that. What you can do is realize what’s happening and realize they are right- they are losing power. That’s a good thing.

  19. candideinnc says

    Politicians bowed to bigots in society in order to acquire or maintain power. Were they hypocritical assholes? Yes. Does that make them bigots? No, it makes them scummy politicians. Does it make Mr. Reed any less of a bigot that he was able to use homophobia to his political advantage? No, he remains a despicable human being, just like he always was.

  20. Ray says

    @Bruno you have no way of knowing what the President would have done nor what Clinton would do today.

    Much of being President is taking hold of the moment.

    Obama has gone much further than any other President before him and he will go further still.

    Clinton will have to live with his record as will this President.

    As for Reed and that other GOP joker, I don’t know how Rachel keeps a straight face.

  21. Hue-Man says

    I’m not an apologist for either Clinton or Obama (I happen to think Obama is a better two-term strategist than Clinton with his Hillarycare and gays in the military fiascos). Consider what would have happened to a white man – politician or otherwise – if at different times in U.S. history had pronounced any of the following: “I think we should stop exterminating the Indians.” “We should stop treating African-Americans as chattel.” “We can trust American-born Japanese to be patriotic to this country.”
    “Communists are OK by me.”

    Gay men were nearly as toxic in the 80s and early 90s – Reagan couldn’t even admit that thousands were dying. Huckabee and many others wanted gay concentration camps. “Gays should be able to serve in the military or Gays should be allowed to marry.”? Political death.

  22. will says

    I’d like to remind everybody that Obama is one of the primary reasons we’re at where we’re at today. Had he not won his 2008 election and McCain/Palin won instead, two additional conservative justices would be sitting on the Court right now in place of Sotomayor and Kagan — and that 5-4 DOMA decision in our favor would most likely have been 6-3 against us upholding that law. I believe we would still win in the end, but the dominoes are going to fall much more quickly now with DOMA gone.

  23. says

    This is just pants-on-head stupid. By allowing us to marry, how is this affecting straight marriage? No one is being forced to divorce, or marry someone of the same gender.

    The right wing nutbags are just mad because they don’t have something to distract from the sh*tty job they’re doing and they’re super b*tthurt now that they can’t use this to fool toothless bigoted rubes into giving them their money.

  24. Factoids says

    The “Christian as victim’ is about their control over society. Not about gay marriage. That’s only a sign that they are losing control. People who keep calling it stupid don’t understand that they are indeed losing power, and pretending otherwise wastes a lot of time. They should lose power because their grip on it was harming others in the manner in which they held control. That’s what they mean by “victimized” Its only stupid if you don’t know how to read the code language they are using. They are saying to Christians “Hey we no longer get to dictate what everyone else does.” Its like telling a wealthy man he’s going to have to live on a middle class man’s budget when he’s become accustomed to living as a wealthy man.

  25. Factoids says

    By the way, the sooner they start to accept the diminished power they have in society, the better. They will be less resistant to compromise. If they continue to think its a battle of retaining existing power, the longer they will hold out.

  26. robertL says

    If the religious right is concerned about the children – there concern is ill placed and timed. They should have been concerned about the divorce laws in the fifty states.
    And on top of that lets get the bible involved – what god has joined together let no MAN put asunder.

  27. jeff says

    What people have forgotten is that at the time DOMA was proposed was that there was a strong movement in Congress for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage and there were at least enough votes to get it thru Congress. We would be in a much bigger and more difficult fight today if DOMA had not been passed to placate those legislators who wanted an amendment.

  28. Homer says

    Sadly, the recent decisions of the SCOTUS does not imply that the meanness and lunacy of people like De Mint and Reed will diminish. Even as these developments provide some measure of protection against bigotry and discrimination, it will more than likely increase the entrenchment of bigotry among the base of support maintained by Reed and DeMint.

  29. JONES says

    We all know this isn’t about the definition of marriage or protecting families or any of their other ‘argle bargle’. It’s about power. Mobilizing the religious faithful against an evil in society to gain election to positions of power.

    LGBT were the marginalized group that was supposed to be easy prey but you underestimated us Ralph. You picked the wrong victim.

  30. Chuck Mielke says

    As a matter of fact, DeMint’s argument is nothing more than fear-mongering built on muddying the waters. It is a logical error to interpret Kennedy’s ruling as calling supporters of one-man-one-woman marriage “intolerant” or “bigoted.” This is purely a calumny against a ruling DeMint doesn’t like. Kennedy’s ruling says, in words more appropriate to the case, that the government has no clear and compelling interest in refusing the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples. It says NOTHING about those who oppose same-sex marriage; to insist otherwise nothing but demagoguery and rabble-rousing.

  31. jamal49 says

    Um, explain it to me again how denying committed, consenting same-sex couples will protect heterosexual marriage? I forget.

    Also, Mr. DeMint, the empirical evidence shows that children in same-sex homes thrive and do as well, if not better, than children in heterosexual homes. That’s a bogus argument bolstered by research.

    Ralph Reed is a corrupt hypocrite. He needs to sit down and shut the f*** up before I track his whiny little evangelical @$$ down and slap him square up side his fool head.

  32. says

    “Being white was all they had left” – Alex Haley, ROOTS

    replace that with “straight, white, male, Christian” and there you have it. also, “Moneyed” – but there are plenty of broke@ss folks who suck up the wealthy like sick puppies.

Leave A Reply