Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Rachel Maddow Confronts Jim DeMint, Ralph Reed Over Gay Marriage On 'Meet The Press'

Rachel Maddow: "Gay people exist. There's nothing we can do in public policy that makes more of us exist, or less of us exist. And you guys have been arguing for a generation that public policy ought to essentially 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 just are arguing in favor of more discrimination, and more discrimination doesn't make straight people's lives any better."


by Anonymousreply 6810/18/2013

You go, Rachel. Give it to them.

by Anonymousreply 106/30/2013

It's a good thing we have people like Maddow, she's brilliant.

by Anonymousreply 206/30/2013

The most ridiculous thing about all this is that their argument now is that they're the ones being discriminated against because gay marriage offends them "morally and is against their religion." So if a Muslim says to them "You eating pork offends me morally and is against my religion. You eating it is discrimination" then he has the right to knock their bacon off their plate?

by Anonymousreply 306/30/2013

Thanks r4, back to your GOProud parade float!

Their arguments are fatuous and fact-free. Ralph Reed acting indignant when facts are presented, as usual. Rachel should have said to him, "Ralph? Everybody over the age of 12 thinks you're gay."

by Anonymousreply 606/30/2013

Poor rethugs at r4 r5— facts are hard.

by Anonymousreply 706/30/2013

R8 get your head out of your ass

by Anonymousreply 906/30/2013

r6, I'm not interested in them. I am however interested in the question and how she would answer it.

by Anonymousreply 1006/30/2013

R8 needs to stick with fair and balanced Fox News.

by Anonymousreply 1106/30/2013

Why would Maddow need to answer any question you ask?

by Anonymousreply 1206/30/2013

I watched the replay this afternoon and was loving it before rain knocked out my connection. Blurg.

She destroys these fools so easily.

by Anonymousreply 1306/30/2013

Well to me the answer is obvious. I don't know how she would answer but that other guy said what I would say: They changed their minds, they evolved, or they realized that it would benefit them politically. The Clintons haven't weighed in on all of this as far as I know. They may not have evolved.

But if you think that little snit gives two shits about the Clintons and Obama being called bigots, you make me laugh until I hurt. He did that to put Rachel in the corner and the other guy pulled her out of it. She could probably have pulled herself out of it but it was nice that she was supported.

There will always be some people who don't like gays for whatever reason. It's nice that so many have changed.

by Anonymousreply 1406/30/2013

r8 you're so full of shit. Obama may not have had the backbone to state that he was for gay marriage in his first term, but that certainly does not make him a bigot. Political expediency, yes. Bigotry no. Bigotry is hatred and fighting for that hatred.

Being a bigot is denying gay people the right to adopt. Changing your state Constitution to ban same sex marriages. Fighting against ENDA. Supporting Prop. 8. Did Obama ever do that? Did any Democrat who calls himself/herself a liberal/progressive ever do that?

When it comes to gay rights, the battle lines are drawn and it's a not a shade of gray between liberals and conservative.

Ralph Reed spent 30 years with the Christian Coalition trying to make it legal to hate gays, blacks and the poor.

You really want Rachel to answer his red herring?

by Anonymousreply 1507/01/2013

I'm so tired of this shit.

You know what, if you think there's no difference and you just want to bitch about all things Obama, then just vote for the fucking GOP.

I'm so sick of this shit from people who know exactly what's on the other side, yet still just bitch and bitch and bitch and bitch about Obama/Dems and pretend there's no difference. Give me a fucking break.

People like you immediately masturbate at the thought of Cheney as an ally knowing full-well he can't do shit for you and didn't do shit when Bush tried to pass the constitutional ban.

You're whining about things that are DONE. Focus on NOW.

by Anonymousreply 1707/01/2013

I heard some idiot recently arguing that Abraham Lincoln was a racist bigot because he did not argue for equality in the race against Douglas. Some things are just not politically possible at particular times. Change doesn't come instantly and you can't forget the enormous pressure facing anyone who stands against huge majorities. Obama handled it just as he should. We wouldn't be seeing the positive changes we have if Obama had been a purist and lost the 2008 election by saying everything that was on his mind. Effective leaders know when to press for change and when to wait.

by Anonymousreply 1807/01/2013

Geez, I wonder who is pushing all these bills on gay issues for all those "tons of Republicans" who had to vote no. Could it be their own Party?

When Obama was a state Senator, he voiced his support for gay marriage. He lacked a backbone in his first time. Call him a coward. Call it political expediency. Call it leading from behind.

But as he gained his footing and some backbone, he has done more to advance gay rights than any of his predecessors. Bigots don't do that. Bigots stay silent.

For Ralph Reed to sit there and call anyone a bigot is just very Rovian.

And you r16 think you're a deep thinker when all you really are is a cynical fool who wants to believe that Dems and GOP are the same.

by Anonymousreply 1907/01/2013

R8 As a straight woman I would like to go on record and say, I like what Rachel is feeding me very much.

by Anonymousreply 2007/01/2013

By the way, anyone who watches Rachel knows she doesn't throw terms like "bigotry" around. She's never called anyone a bigot. What she does is basically report on what the person has done and said.

Who is and who isn't a bigot is not what she's concern about. It's what they do with that bigotry that she covers.

Her answer that "No one's calling anybody a bigot[.] "You're the only one who's saying 'bigot.'" is true. She's never used that word.

She never once called any anti-gay marriage person a bigot. That's the meme the rightwing as been pushing against Obama to deflect from themselves.

by Anonymousreply 2107/01/2013

I commend Rachel for having to sit next to Ralph Reed.

by Anonymousreply 2207/01/2013

closet-case for days: ralph reed/

by Anonymousreply 2307/01/2013

It is an ineffective tactic to address the intolerance we see from conservatives and the religious right by claiming Clinton, Obama and Biden use to be like that.

Their positions have changed. Hillary Clinton has made her support of same-sex marriage clear, as have Biden and Obama.

I have no doubt that in 2008 internal polling showed Clinton and Obama that by supporting same-sex civil unions over same-sex marriage they would gain more support than they would lose. It's 2013 now and their positions have changed.

That in no way gives a pass or an excuse to those whose position has not changed.

Let's not belittle the importance of Rachel Maddow by claiming she is not part of mainstream media. She is. She's not writing for Mother Jones or reporting for Democracy Now! - she had a very successful career and very successful show on one of the three major cable news networks. Why deny her that place and recognition?

by Anonymousreply 2407/01/2013


Because freepers and log cabiners are idiots.

by Anonymousreply 2507/01/2013

I was wondering how long it would take the "Rachel is BRILLIANT" troll to pop by, and there she is, at R2! LOL!

R2, I find her off putting, but I also think she's spot on when she says things like this. I'm also glad she's around to say them.

However, your continued "she's so BRILLIANT" is tiresome and shows a special level of ignorance when you find something so matter of fact, something so many of us would say and something so obvious somehow brilliant.

You should read books more.

by Anonymousreply 2607/01/2013

R26 - I know I could take your point more seriously if you would list which TV shows you have had - and what you said on them.

Or what books you have written and what you wrote.

by Anonymousreply 2707/01/2013

Poor thangs show just can't get any viewers, she needs to check the Duck Dynasty formula.

by Anonymousreply 2807/01/2013

say WHAT?!

by Anonymousreply 2907/01/2013

I lover her.

by Anonymousreply 3007/01/2013

I saw this. I couldn't believe DeMint referred to her as "she" when she was sitting right there on the same panel.

Ralph Reed looked like his grip was tightening uncomfortably on his butt plug.

by Anonymousreply 3107/01/2013

If it weren't for gays and issues such as this, there would be absolutely no career for Ralph Reed, Jim DeMint, or any of the "Family defenders." And they know this.

by Anonymousreply 3207/01/2013

Who the FUCK is defending DeMint and Reed here? FUCK OFF, you shits. Why do you hate America?

She is the only journalist to call out these GOP Robber-barron enabling douchebags directly to their face. That infuriates the freepers.

by Anonymousreply 3307/01/2013

R4, you don't realise that she's not doing "what ifs," she's responding to them in the moment about what they were saying right then and there. And if they weren't on board at this time and were presenting fatuous arguments defending what has now become nothing more than obvious bigotry, I'm sure she would challenge Clinton, Obama and Biden - all of whom are now on board.

by Anonymousreply 3407/01/2013

Indeed. r34. She has in fact criticized both Obama and Clinton when relevant.

by Anonymousreply 3507/01/2013

These right-wingers know it's almost all over. They just have to keep whining long enough to wring the last fundraising dollar out of their core group of followers.

by Anonymousreply 3607/01/2013

R4, you need to read a little history and see how change happens and how politicians make that change, whether Lincoln and slavery, JFK, LBJ and equal rights in the 60s, FDR and world war policy prior to the American entrance into the war to the present days gay rights movement. Believe it or not, Bill Clinton when he first started to change miliary policy toward our community, wanted exactly what we have now- even in the signing of DOMA (which was part of a political package to prevent the Gingrich right from having their way completely)- was in it for the long run. He was the first to end discrimination of same sex couple benefits in the Federal gov't which lead to the same in corporate American. He prosecuter blackmail against gay Federal employees which continued right up throught the first Bush. He was for gay marriage rights back in the mid 90s. He was at the committment cerimony of one of my oldest friends in the mid 90s (when President) and longed for the day to come of full marriage rights. (He was President then.)

Many not so good historians say Lincoln did not mind slavery earlier in his political career- but to historians who delved deeper- his private letters did not match his public statements. That is to day, if his private sentiments were truly known, he never would have been elected President and he knew it. The North was every bit as racist as the south, if they did not condone slavery. Lincoln struck when the iron was hot, while trying to conduct a civil war. It worked.

Do your homework and find out how change happens politically and legally, as opposed to opinion over the dinner table, and more importantly, activism, which is a key component of change but something that any elected pol has to separate themself from to a degree if they wish to achieve their goal. Hillary Clinton hold forth brilliantly in her autobiography on the difference between activism and political activity. She notes that pols cannot do what activist can, but also that activism advances the goals of the pols.

In short, pols have to by the nature of their jobs hold their cards very close to their chests.

Start with the Founding Fathers and the creation of system of gov't and go right down to today and you will not find one political leader publically exposing their true colors on divisive issues of the day, while at the same time working steadily toward a goal that matches the activists of the day on that goal issue.

Read history R4.

by Anonymousreply 3707/01/2013


by Anonymousreply 3807/01/2013

Right-O, R36.

What did Dick Cheney say about the "last throes" of the Iraqi insurgency? Oh, yeah:

[quote] I think they're {Iraqis] in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.

Change "Iraqis" to "American conservative antigays," and we've got ourselves a winner.

by Anonymousreply 3907/01/2013

[quote]Gay people exist. There’s nothing we can do in public policy that makes more of us exist, or less of us exist.

What must it have been like for that pathetic closet case Ralph Reed to sit there and hear this?

I'll bet it was all he could do not to stuff his fingers in his ears and scream [bold] LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I can't HEAR YOU . I'M STRAIGHT I'M STRAIGHT I'M STRAIGHT I'M STRAIGHT I'M STRAIGHT I'M STRAIGHT !!!!![/bold]

just look at him stewing.

by Anonymousreply 4007/01/2013

R40, that picture should be on greeting cards: "Happy Pride Day!"

by Anonymousreply 4107/01/2013

he is SUCH a closet case.

by Anonymousreply 4207/01/2013

Look at r4 and then read Reed's own response below. Someone in this thread is repeating word-for-word GOP talking points. Jesus, how much do these soulless ass-wipes get paid?

From Towleroad... [italic]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.[/italic]

Said DeMint:

[quote]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:

[quote]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:

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 4307/01/2013

I ♥ Rachel Maddow

She put it perfectly.

by Anonymousreply 4407/01/2013

DeMint couldn't handle her, so he resorts to dismissing her.

by Anonymousreply 4507/01/2013

[quote]DeMint couldn't handle her, so he resorts to dismissing her.

Which is par for the course for any GOP shill.

by Anonymousreply 4607/01/2013

Not only that, R46, but the right-wingers will scream about the "liberal media" as though it's their fault that the GOP is inept when it comes selling their own positions.

GOP logic: Simply asking "What do you read?" becomes a liberal conspiracy. How about focusing on the fact that you had a candidate that couldn't *respond*?

by Anonymousreply 4707/01/2013

If Obama was openly in favor of changing homophobic policies during his first election, he would never have been elected (it is ridiculous to bring up Clinton in that conversation, when public opinion considered DADT to be too pro-gay) Obama had to appeal to voters that were fans of George W. Bush. I knew his second term would be when major changes happened. He said things to reassure his more conservative base, but can't anyone read between the lines?

by Anonymousreply 4807/01/2013

Most of us can. Log Cabins, who already hated him, cannot.

by Anonymousreply 4907/01/2013

Rachel's initial smackdown was brilliant; however, after Ralph Reed shot back she pretty much remained silent the rest of the show. It was disappointing.

by Anonymousreply 5007/01/2013

Underwhelming. I wish she'd just go off on them with her facts machine gun mouth. She great with it. Just embarrass them into submission. That's what all Republickcunts need.

by Anonymousreply 5107/01/2013

Ralph Reed is a Miscavige-level closet case. Very serious indeed. Who the fuck does he think he's fooling?

by Anonymousreply 5207/01/2013

..his wife?

by Anonymousreply 5307/01/2013

Not necessarily. You or I have NO idea what goes on in that marriage.

by Anonymousreply 5407/01/2013

Isn't Pete Williams gay?

by Anonymousreply 5507/01/2013

[quote]Not necessarily. You or I have NO idea what goes on in that marriage.

I have a pretty good idea what doesn't.

by Anonymousreply 5607/01/2013

Yes, but he never acknowledges his sexuality...and he'd never have the balls to side with Rachel.

by Anonymousreply 5707/01/2013

R18 and R19 nail it.

by Anonymousreply 5807/01/2013

Excellent post r37.

by Anonymousreply 5907/01/2013

Reed needs to be shot in the face and the Westboro Baptist Church picketing his funeral.

by Anonymousreply 6007/01/2013

Their mouths were gaping for a moment, but they went right back to their anti gay nonsense... This is going to be a huge battle, were many lives will be lost in this struggle for equality. People like those asshols on meet the press want gay people to feel pain, to die and go away. We have to stay strong and march on.

by Anonymousreply 6107/01/2013

Doesn't Ralph Reed have a pretty seedy past? Something about forced abortion and sweat shops? He was connected to the Abramoff scandal. Why can't these things be discussed on MTP? People have the right to know.

by Anonymousreply 6207/01/2013

They keep saying straight parents are better, when there is no evidence of that. Lies!

by Anonymousreply 6307/01/2013

In fact the science says otherwise. Certainly straight parents can run the gamut of wonderful to horrible, as, I suppose can gay parents, but gay parents do just as well (if not a little better in some areas) raising well-adjusted kids as straights.

by Anonymousreply 6407/01/2013

Timely bump

by Anonymousreply 6510/18/2013

Gotta love Rachel. Thanks for bumping.

by Anonymousreply 6610/18/2013

Why is this timely?

by Anonymousreply 6710/18/2013

Slap him, Willona!

by Anonymousreply 6810/18/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!