Connect with us

Karen Handel in 2010: Gay Relationships ‘Are Not What God Intended’ (Video)

Published

on

‘Why Is Marriage Between One Man and One Woman? Are You Serious?’ Asks Karen Handel

Former Georgia Republican Secretary of State Karen Handel has made no secret of her feelings against LGBT people, same-sex relationships, same-sex marriage, and same-sex couples adopting children. Handel today faces Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s special election to fill an open congressional seat. The odds, and the stakes, couldn’t be higher. 

This past weekend Handel was confronted by a conservative voter who explained that she worries for her LGBT daughter who some day, when she grows up, may want to adopt or have children and raise a family. Handel chose to make her feelings known in a reserved manner, citing her “faith” as the reason she ca’t support an LGBT person adopting and raising a family, despite the mother’s pleas.

But in 2010, Handel, then running for governor, gave an interview to local Georgia reporter Doug Richards of Atlanta’s NBC affiliate 11 Alive. When the conversation turned to LGBT people, Handel was only too happy to give voice to her opposition of same-sex marriage, and even same-sex relationships.

At one point Handel was asked why she believes marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Her response was not surprising, but no less offensive: she laughed.

ThinkProgress posted the interview in 2010, and in 2012, on the heels of Handel’s near-destruction of breast cancer non-profit Komen for the Cure, NCRM reported on her remarks. Now, as voters go to the polls, the interview is back in the news, and increasingly has been making its way around social media the past few weeks. 

Here are a few clips. When watching, listen not only to Handel’s words, but the contempt for LGBT people she barely attempts to hide.

Handel: “Why is marriage between one man and one woman? Are you serious?” she asks, laughing.

Handel: “I don’t want to see any taxpayer funding going toward benefits etcetera for a couple that is not married. In our state and for me, marriage is for one man and one woman.”

Handel: “Yes,” when asked if she is against civil unions for gay people:

Handel: “Marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not think that gay relationships are – they are not what God intended.”

To those who might complain these clips and quotes are taken out of context, below is the full 5-minute video, which ends with Handel expressing her upset over the reporter’s questions. The final question:

Q:  I guess I want to know why you think gay parents aren’t as legitimate as heterosexual parents. 

A:  Because I don’t. 

Also below is the transcript of the video. The video begins with Handel discussing why she chose to speak with the Log Cabin Republicans.

Handel:  (The Log Cabin Republican check is) certainly not a membership.  And I don’t think going to an event constitutes membership, nor does it constitute agreeing with everything they have to say either. 

Richards:  Why did you do that? 

A:  Well, when you’re out campaigning — remember, I was campaigning for Fulton County Commission — so I think it was important for me to speak to all the various Republican groups.  Let’s remember a lot of Republicans have spoken to the Log Cabin organization, from, I think (Senator Johnny) Isakson has spoken, Sonny Perdue has spoken.  It was part of going out and trying to run a comprehensive campaign.  And the key, I think, was to make sure that I was doing the outreach with folks.  And it was better to not have folks be adversarial against me, and so that was the whole point of it. 

Q:  You said there were issues where you may have agreed and disagreed on.  What were the issues you agreed with them on? 

A:  From taxes and cutting the spending at Fulton County and candidly, the organization was a good ally on those types of fiscal issues. 

Q:  You have said that you are — you’re against gay marriage, right? 

A:  Mm hm.  Absolutely.  Marriage is between one man and one woman.  And I’ve been very very clear about that.  And the record is clear about any of the other issues like domestic partner benefits or anything like that.  In fact in Fulton, I voted no on domestic partner benefits. 

Q:  Are you against civil unions for gays? 

A:  Yes.  I think that’s not an issue that has come forward in Georgia.  We have the constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and I don’t want to see any taxpayer funding going toward benefits etcetera for a couple that is not married.  In our state and for me, marriage is for one man and one woman. 

Q:  Why is that? 

A:  Why is marriage between one man and one woman?  (Laughs).  Are you serious? 

Q:  Yes.  Well why — do you view committed gay relationships as being less legitimate than committed heterosexual relationships? 

A:  As a Christian, I view relationships and marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Q:  But what about the legitimacy of the relationship?  Do you have any gay friends?  Do you know gay couples? 

A:  Of course I do.  Are we going to spend our whole day talking on this issue? 

Q:  I want to know how you feel about this. 

A:  I’ve been very clear.  And you know, as a Christian, marriage is between a man and a woman.  I do not think that gay relationships are — they are not what God intended.  And that’s just my viewpoint on it.  Others might disagree with that.  But I would also hope that if you look at what is happening in our state, we’ve got issues we need to be focused on in Georgia.  We have a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.  And it’s something that I supported wholeheartedly.  We have that, and let’s get dealing with the other issues that we also need to deal with in Georgia.  And the press can help with that.  (Laughs). 

Q:  Frequently, folks in the legislature kind of threaten to — there are always rumblings in the legislature that they may outlaw gay adoptions.  You’re against gay adoption. 

A:  I am against gay adoption.  But remember — I mean, if there is legislation on  that, certainly I will follow that and look at it.  But in the end, ultimately courts are going to be the ones to have to make the decision on that and it’s always in the best interests of the child.  Do I think that gay parents is in the best interest of the child?  No.  But we do have our court system that deals with many and most of those issues. 

Q:  Would you favor outlawing gay adoptions? 

A:  Yeah, I would consider that, absolutely. 

Q:  Do you know any gay couples with children? 

A:  Not that I’m aware of. 

Q:  So you think gay couples are less qualified to function as parents than straight couples? 

A:  I think that for a child to be in a household — in a family in a household with a situation where the parents are not married, as in one man and one woman, is not the best household for a child. 

Q:  Is it better or worse than a single parent household? 

A:  Doug, I’m really trying to be straightforward with you but I’m not going to debate all the nuances.  I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think that marriage is between a man and a woman.  And that’s what I believe, and I don’t know what more you would like me to add to that. 

Q:  I guess I want to know why you think gay parents aren’t as legitimate as heterosexual parents. 

A:  Because I don’t. 

Q:  (Pause)  Well, I realize that. 

A:  Well, Doug, we’re not going to spend the whole day discussing this issue.  And you know, it ‘s really kind of disappointing — we invited you on this (leg of the bus trip). 

Q:  I know. 

A:  So we’re going to need to move on.

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

Image via Facebook 

RELATED:

WATCH: Karen Handel Cites Her Faith to Tell Mom of LGBTQ Child She’s Against Gay People Adopting, Having Families

‘I Do Not Support a Livable Wage’: Watch Karen Handel Throw Her Congressional Race Against Jon Ossoff Off a Cliff

Failed Former Susan G. Komen VP Talks About Planned Parenthood ‘Bullying’

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Published

1 hour ago

on

April 17, 2024

By

After Democratic House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin blasted Republican Chairman Jim Comer, declaring “somebody needs therapy here” during a heated verbal brawl Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) mockingly urged committee members to come together to “begin Comer’s therapy session.”

In a viral three-minute walkthrough of the discredited far-right wing chairman’s efforts, including making false claims and use, as Moskowitz noted, Russian disinformation to try to build a case against President Joe Biden, the Florida Democrat appeared to put the final nail in the impeachment coffin.

Moskowitz told the committee members Chairman Comer has to “face the fact that he was taken by the Russians,” and “was used by the Russians.” He also noted the committee has “already lost” Comer “to Russian propaganda.”

“I mean, we got to build a forcefield around the Chairman to make sure we don’t lose him to Chinese propaganda as well.”

READ MORE: ‘Big Journalism Fail’: Mainstream Media Blasted Over Coverage of Historic Trump Trial

Moskowitz made clear, through his well-known wit, that Comer “no longer has impeachment” as an option to use against President Biden.

The video has gone viral, with over 175,000 views in just over one hour.

Read the transcript of Moskowitz’s remarks and watch the video below or at this link.

“Let me start by saying, obviously Chairman Comer’s not here, but I think in light of what we witnessed earlier, I think it’s important that together as a committee that we begin, Chairman Comer’s therapy session, right. You know, a member of the other side wanted to confirm what the title of the hearing was, right, Chinese propaganda. Well, we know the title of the hearing certainly isn’t about impeachment anymore. And Chairman Comer has suffered tremendous loss, and we all know in our life, what it’s like to suffer tremendous loss. There’s all sorts of different stages of grief and that’s the loss obviously, of his of his impeachment hearing. And everyone deals with that in different ways and sometimes it takes time to grieve and struggle and and fill that hole that void that now exists now that he no longer has impeachment.”

“The only way we as a committee are going to help Chairman Comer get better is we have to get to the root cause. Right? So for today’s therapy session, okay, I want to talk about denial. Right? The denial that the impeachment hearings are over, and the denial, obviously, that he started with the 1023 form, which was Russian disinformation. And so, you know, Chairman Comer’s psychology teaches us that, you know, someone might be like him, using denial as a defense mechanism. And signs include that you refuse to talk about the problem. You find ways to justify your behavior, you blame other people or outside forces for causing the problem. You persist in your behavior by consequences. You promise to address the problem, maybe in the future, or you avoid thinking about the problem. And so in addition to these signs that Chairman comer has been displaying, as we saw at the beginning, he also might be feeling hopeless or helpless.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

“I just want the chairman to know that we’re pulling for him. We really we really are. I know, I know. It’s been hard to become someone who was used by the Russians. But the good news is, is that he’s this hearing today on Chinese propaganda, because we’ve already lost him to Russian propaganda. I mean, we got to build a forcefield around the chairman to make sure we don’t lose him to Chinese propaganda, as well.”

“In fact, you can see behind me, these are quotes from the chairman, Chairman Comer. Every single solitary time and there are hundreds more that he went on TV in interviews and talked about this 1023 form, which was all Russian disinformation. But we gotta make the Chairman understand that it’s going to be okay. We will get him through this, but he’s got to recognize, gotta recognize that denial is not just a river in Egypt. He’s gonna have to face the fact that he was taken by the Russians.”

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Big Journalism Fail’: Mainstream Media Blasted Over Coverage of Historic Trump Trial

Published

4 hours ago

on

April 17, 2024

By

The media’s ability to shape public opinion is well-documented, and by the end of the second day of the first criminal trial in history of a former U.S. president critics are slamming the content, framing, and focus of mainstream media organizations. The biggest concerns: refusing to cover the former president’s apparent inability to stay awake in court, too much identifying information of potential and chosen jurors, and even subtle descriptions that can be used to feed into false perceptions the trial is “unfair” or, as the ex-president likes to say, a “scam.”

Overnight, CNN’s Oliver Darcy’s “Reliable Sources” newsletter blasted mainstream media outlets that “strangely show little interest in reporting on Donald Trump’s courtroom naps.”

“Imagine, for a moment, if President Joe Biden were to be caught openly sleeping at an important hearing,” Darcy posits. Trump was caught “nodding” off repeatedly several times over the first two days of trial (there is not trial Wednesdays). “Then imagine it were to occur at another important hearing the next day. Not only would right-wing media outlets like Fox News run wild with coverage questioning his fitness for office, mainstream news organizations would no doubt also treat the snooze fest as a serious news story. But, for some unknown reason, Donald Trump falling asleep at his historic criminal trial in New York (as he apparently did, again, on Tuesday) has been met with a rather muted response.”

READ MORE: SCOTUS Justices Appear to Want to Toss Obstruction Charges Against Some J6 Defendants: Experts

Noting, “It’s important,” Darcy asks, “why has much of the press fallen asleep at the wheel?” and serves up some examples – or lack thereof.

“ABC News and NBC News didn’t even bother mentioning it on their evening newscasts and many major outlets haven’t even filed straight stories on it. To be frank, if not for The NYT’s Maggie Haberman reporting on the matter Tuesday, it’s unclear whether the public — which is relying on news organizations to be its eyes and ears in the courtroom, given cameras are barred — would know about it.”

“It’s all the more bizarre given that Trump has made attacking ‘sleepy Joe’ a central tenet of his campaign, framing the president as lacking the stamina to serve in the nation’s highest office. Which is to say, the fact that Trump is the one apparently unable to stay awake in his own criminal trial isn’t a trivial story.”

Jennifer Schulze, a media critic who was a Chicago Sun-Times executive producer, WGN news director, and adjunct college professor of journalism, pointing to Darcy’s criticism, calls it “a big journalism fail.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

The ex-president is facing 34 felony counts for falsification of business records when he paid hush money to an adult film actress then allegedly tried to cover it up, which some say is election interference.

New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan is overseeing the Trump trial, and ordered the identities of all jurors and prospective jurors to remain anonymous. Trump has a proven track record of alleged attempts to intimidate witnesses, judges, prosecutors, and others involved in his trials.

Some are concerned the media went too far in posting and publishing some possibly identifying information internet sleuths could use to piece together their names.

“There is seriously far, far too much identifying information about prospective jurors, several of whom are now empaneled, coming out in the press,” warned attorney and author Luppe B. Luppen.

Here’s how Fox News host Jesse Watters used that information to target one empaneled juror, while attempting to discredit the trial.

Fox News’ Sean Hannity went after “Juror Number One,” who is the foreperson.

It is not just Fox News targeting jurors.

Even The New York Times’ coverage of jurors drew the ire of critics.

READ MORE: ‘Your Client Is a Criminal Defendant’: Judge Denies Trump Request to Skip Trial for SCOTUS

Here’s how The Times’ Jonah Bromwich reported on the jury foreperson:

“The foreperson who was just selected — that’s juror one, the de facto leader of the group who will likely help steer deliberations — works in sales and enjoys the outdoors. He is originally from Ireland, but will help decide the former American president’s fate.”

University of Wisconsin—Madison professor of political science, who has a Ph.D. in Government, criticized the Times’ reporting.

“100% certain if the foreperson were native born, they would not have written this sentence and used the formulation of ‘former president’ subtly implying the foreperson from Ireland is somehow not a real American.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

SCOTUS Justices Appear to Want to Toss Obstruction Charges Against Some J6 Defendants: Experts

Published

1 day ago

on

April 16, 2024

By

Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical of a law used to prosecute over 300 January 6 defendants, and Donald Trump, as they heard oral arguments Tuesday.

“A decision rejecting the government’s interpretation of the law could not only disrupt those prosecutions but also eliminate two of the federal charges against former President Donald J. Trump in the case accusing him of plotting to subvert the 2020 election,” The New York Times reports.

“January 6 insurrectionists had a great day in the Supreme Court today,” Vox‘s Ian Millhiser reported. “Most of the justices seem to want to make it harder to prosecute January 6 rioters.”

Millhiser on social media put it this way: “On Monday, the Supreme Court effectively eliminated the right to hold a Black Lives Matter protest in three US states. On Tuesday, the same justices were very, very afraid that January 6 insurrectionists are being treated unfairly.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

Right-wing justices on the Supreme Court suggested the law, which makes it a crime to obstruct an official proceeding, could be used too broadly.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, as NBC News reported. “Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote, qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

Some legal experts appeared stunned and disappointed by the right-wing justices’ remarks.

“In oral argument today, Justice [Clarence] Thomas is minimizing the severity of the 1/6 insurrection at the Capitol. Perhaps that’s because his wife was part of the conspiracy. What a disgrace that he’s sitting on this case,” attorney and frequent CNN guest Jeffrey Toobin commented.

READ MORE: ‘I Have a Bucket of Water’: Dems to Save Johnson’s Job Over GOPer Who Wants ‘World to Burn

“The text of the obstruction law the Supreme Court is considering today pretty clearly applies to January 6 defendants. Will the purportedly textualist conservative majority, as in Trump v. Anderson, once again bypass text to avoid accountability for Trump and his supporters?” asked former federal corruption prosecutor Noah Bookbinder, who is now president of the government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

“Supreme Court expressed concern that Jan 6 prosecutions could chill violent insurrections against democracy,” wrote Scott Shapiro, a Yale Law School professor of law and professor of philosophy.

Elie Mystal, The Nation’s justice correspondent, did not hold back.

“The six conservative justices are absolutely trying to figure out how to throw out the obstruction charges against their cousins and wives and pledge brothers who attacked the Capitol on January 6,” he wrote.

Similar to Millhiser’s comparison, Mystal remarked, “If you think that trash you just heard from the Supreme Court about protecting J6 rioters will *ever* be applied to peaceful Black protesters, think again.”

READ MORE: ‘Something’s Fishy Here’: Trump’s Latest $175 Million Bond Filings Questioned by Experts

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.