Jim DeMint | News | Rachel Maddow | Ralph Reed | Supreme Court

Rachel Maddow Rips Jim DeMint for Suggesting Christians are the Victims of the SCOTUS Rulings: VIDEO

Maddow_reed

On Meet the Press today, Senator Jim DeMint claimed religious people who oppose gay marriage were being "denied dignity" by Justice Kennedy's statement that  'To oppose gay marriage is to deny dignity to people who deserve equal protection'. DeMint was quickly slapped down by Rachel Maddow.

Said DeMint:

What I'd say, David, is he is denying dignity to the millions of Americans who, for moral or religious reasons, believe that gay marriage is wrong. As you just said, you've got 37 states where the people have decided that they want to protect the marriage between a man and a woman because they know that that's the environment where children can thrive and succeed. I mean, that's been proven. So it's not about the desires of adults, it's really about the best environment for children. We're talking all about politics, but the reason governments at the state level and the federal level have recognized marriage between a man and a woman is because it's better for our country and it's better for children.

Replied Maddow:

Justice Kennedy addressed that issue specifically in his ruling. He says that by denying marriage rights to same-sex couples who have kids, you’re humiliating and demeaning those kids. By denying their families equal protection under the law by the parents who are raising them and who love them and who make their family. So we can put it in the interests of children, but I think that cuts both ways. And the ruling cuts against that argument. I mean, gay people exist. There’s nothing we can do in public policy can do to make more of us exist or less of us exist. And you guys for a generation have argued that public policy ought to demean gay people as a way of expressing disapproval of the fact that we exist. But you don’t make any less of us exist, you are just arguing for more discrimination. And more discrimination doesn’t make straight people’s lives any better.

Replied Reed:

David, I really can't let that go. I mean, this suggestion that because somebody wants to affirm the institution of marriage that they're ipso facto intolerant? By that argument, Barack Obama was intolerant 14 months ago. By that argument, 342 members of the House, 85 members of the Senate (including, by the way, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy) who all voted for this law, and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, were intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. 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.

    Posted by: Factoids | Jun 30, 2013 6:37:35 PM


  2. 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.

    Posted by: Factoids | Jun 30, 2013 6:37:36 PM


  3. 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.

    Posted by: candideinnc | Jun 30, 2013 6:58:13 PM


  4. @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.

    Posted by: Ray | Jun 30, 2013 7:41:26 PM


  5. @David R - Yes, Rachel called him out on the 2 parent misrepresentation. I believe David Gregory called him out too.

    Posted by: Stephen in Laguna | Jun 30, 2013 7:52:51 PM


  6. 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.

    Posted by: Hue-Man | Jun 30, 2013 8:07:04 PM


  7. Years of bigotry and corruption finally destroyed Ralph Reed's choir-boy face. He now looks like the portrait in his attic.

    Posted by: Richard | Jun 30, 2013 8:13:55 PM


  8. 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.

    Posted by: will | Jun 30, 2013 8:24:25 PM


  9. 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.

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | Jun 30, 2013 8:39:51 PM


  10. 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.

    Posted by: Factoids | Jun 30, 2013 8:46:27 PM


  11. 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.

    Posted by: Factoids | Jun 30, 2013 8:48:42 PM


  12. 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.

    Posted by: robertL | Jun 30, 2013 10:05:21 PM


  13. 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.

    Posted by: jeff | Jun 30, 2013 11:08:19 PM


  14. 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.

    Posted by: Homer | Jul 1, 2013 12:34:35 AM


  15. I now officially despise and loath evangelical christians. A pox and a curse on all their houses unto the 20th generation.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Jul 1, 2013 8:08:20 AM


  16. 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.

    Posted by: JONES | Jul 1, 2013 10:16:15 AM


  17. 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.

    Posted by: Chuck Mielke | Jul 1, 2013 4:03:24 PM


  18. Ralph Reed's "boyish charm" sure hasn't aged well. He looks like an older even more bitter version of Mad Men's Pete Campbell.

    Posted by: Frank | Jul 1, 2013 4:13:59 PM


  19. 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.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Jul 3, 2013 1:23:33 PM


  20. @Factoids - YOU ROCK!

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jul 3, 2013 1:30:23 PM


  21. "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.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jul 3, 2013 1:31:51 PM


  22. Wow. I love Rachel Maddow. She is so strong to take all that hatred coming from Alex P Keaton.

    Posted by: Andy | Jul 5, 2013 3:49:48 AM


  23. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «David Boies: SCOTUS Declared All State Gay Marriage Bans Unconstitutional — VIDEO« «