Connect with us

CNN Takes Down Tony Perkins: ‘Why Do Homosexuals Bother You So Much?’

Published

on

Tony Perkins Learns He Cannot Lie About Gay People On TV Anymore

Tony Perkins Thursday learned that credible journalists will no longer allow him to lie about gay people, same-sex marriage, or the LGBT community on national TV anymore. Two weeks to the day of Perkins’ horrible, no good, very bad day, during which MSNBC’s Chris Matthews finally played hardball on “Hardball” with Perkins — asking him tough questions and holding his feet to the fire on same-sex marriage and gay rights — with Congressman Barney Frank doing some of the heavy lifting, two weeks to the day when CNN’s Soledad O’Brien took Tony Perkins apart, CNN’s Brooke Baldwin very elegantly annihilated Perkins today.

Perkins is the head of the certified anti-gay hate group Family Research Council.

Below is the video and complete transcript of yesterday’s Tony Perkins interview with Brooke Baldwin, via CNN. We’ve highlighted to important sections, but encourage you to watch and listen to the entire video.

Before you do, a few notes to keep in mind, from GLAAD:

Here are a few of the key questions, along with Perkins’ answers.

  • Baldwin asked Perkins if he had ever been to the home of a married same-sex couple. He had not.
  • She asked how he would explain to a married gay couple that they should not have the protections of marriage. He did not answer.
  • Baldwin asked Perkins why gay people bother him so much. He said they don’t … but he did so very uncomfortably, and it was evident he was not telling the whole truth.
  • When he implied that his was the majority position, she corrected him, citing the latest polls showing only 39% of Americans believing marriage equality should be illegal, opposed to 53% who say it should be legal.
  • And when he told her it was a policy issue, she corrected him, and told him it was a human issue.

Perkins, as he always does, gave his line about “social science” showing “kids do best with a mother and a father.” This is absolute garbage. The studies he is citing compared kids raised by a mother and a father to kids from single parent homes. Every single mainstream study that has ever been conducted, comparing kids raised by two gay parents to kids raised by two straight parents, has found absolutely no difference.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2012/05/24/exp-tony-perkins.cnn

BALDWIN: Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council.

Tony, nice to have you on.

TONY PERKINS, PRESIDENT, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Good afternoon, Brooke.

BALDWIN: You heard the president right there. You’re speaking at the top of the hour. Give me a little preview of what you’ll be saying at 3:00 Eastern.

PERKINS: Well, I’m actually joining a large group of pastors from various ethnic and denominational backgrounds who have come to Washington, who are saying that, look, the president has gone one bridge too far. A lot of these African-American pastors saying, look, marriage is very clearly described in the Bible. The president has basically drawn a line in the sand and said, hey, are you going to cross it? And these pastors are going to cross it.

I can tell you this. Based on the polling data, and when you see 32 states that have voted to defend traditional marriage, none voting to redefine it, voters are not going to follow the president down the same-sex marriage aisle. In fact, I don’t think they’re going to hold their piece. I think they’re going to start speaking out. The president is doing too much in trying to redefine our culture by redefining marriage.

BALDWIN: Well, Tony, I know you point to those polls. I do want to show you another poll as well. This is when it comes to opposition of same-sex marriage. It’s actually, if you see the numbers, I don’t know if you have a monitor there on The Hill, it’s a new low here. This is a “Washington Post”/ABC News poll. So you say the question is, should same-sex marriage be legal or illegal? The majority there, 53 percent, say legal. Most people in the country don’t agree with you. 

PERKINS: Well, it’s on — how you ask the question. You look at the various polls out there. And the real poll that matters is when the voters vote on whether or not marriage should be defined as a union of a man and a woman. And again, 30 states have been trying that definition into their constitution with an average vote of 67 percent. It’s not a close issue when it gets to the states.

BALDWIN: OK, well let’s then move away from numbers. And I just want to play a little sound. This is from Secretary of State Colin Powell, Republican, spoke with Wolf Blitz on CNN here. Take a listen to what he said. They talked about this, marriage equality.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN COLIN POWELL (RET.), FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: In terms of a legal matter, of creating a contract between two people that’s called marriage and allowing them to live together with the protection of law, it seems to me is the way we should be moving in this country. And so I support the president’s decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BALDWIN: This is a man, you know the history as well as I do in the ’90s, led, you know, the adoption of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Now he’s saying no problem with gay marriage. My question to you, Tony Perkins, why are Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, why are they wrong?

PERKINS: Well, I think if it were to stop at say the marriage alter, just two people who loved each other, and I think if that were all that we were talking about here, more Americans might agree with Colin Powell. But what we’re talking about here are the — is the curriculum in our public schools and what our children are going to be taught. We’re already seeing that happening. We’re seeing the issue of religious liberty. A clear conflict and a contradiction with what many people believe in the – 

BALDWIN: Well, why are we talking about — forgive me for interrupting. Why are we talking about curriculum in the school when really this is just about — this is about —

PERKINS: Well, because (INAUDIBLE) —

BALDWIN: Love and the law and the ability to get married or not and having those rights recognized.

PERKINS: Well, no, no, no, no. Listen, Brooke, that’s not it. We’ve already seen in places such as Massachusetts that’s legalized same-sex marriage, all of a sudden in the elementary schools it’s taught that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual and parents are not able to opt their children out of that teaching. We’ve seen religious institutions that have lost their tax exemption because they refuse to allow their facility to be used for same-sex unions. So this is much more than just whether or not two people love each other.

BALDWIN: Of course.

PERKINS: This is about who we are as a nation.

BALDWIN: It’s about rights. I understand.

PERKINS: No, it’s about religious freedom. It’s about parental rights. It’s about public accommodation. There’s a lot more here than just two people who might have an affinity for one another. 

BALDWIN: You bring up Massachusetts, and we all know, Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize same sex marriage. That was back in 2004. And the divorce rate actually in that state has only fallen since then. 

PERKINS: Well, absolutely. And what you’re also seeing is the marriage rates are falling, because as we in our public policy devalue marriage, which we began really in 1969 with no fault divorce, we have devalued the institution and, of course, we have 40 years now of social science research that says this public policy change was a disaster. This could very well be the death nail of marriage.

And, of course, the real losers here are children. We found that children who grow up with a mom and a dad are much better economically, they’re better emotionally, they’re better in their educational pursuits. So why would we adopt policy that would move us away from the gold standard? We need to promote that which is good for our children and society as a whole, not just one or two people here and there.

BALDWIN: Would you rather have children then grow up without parents? And also, how is a same-sex relationship, how is that less valued? 

PERKINS: Well, Brooke, I mean that’s a good question. It’s not just the issue of two caregivers. If it were just two caregivers, three would be even better. It’s an issue of a mom and a dad and the fundamental role. And this is not — this is not political hyperbole. This is the social science that shows that children need the developmental aspects of both a mom and a dad. And now while we — obviously we don’t get to that in every situation, we should strive for that and our policy should undergird that and promote it. This moves us away from that. And so that’s why you see pastors from different ethnic backgrounds, denominational backgrounds saying, we’re not going to be silent on this issue.

BALDWIN: Not all, but some. And everyone has the right to opine. But my question is, I guess more on a personal level to you, have you ever been to the home of a married same-sex couple, Tony? 

PERKINS: I have not been to the home of a same-sex married couple, no.

BALDWIN: If you were ever to do so and you’re sitting across from them over dinner, how would you convince them that their life together — either two men, two women — hurts straight couples? What do you tell them?

PERKINS: Well, first, Brooke, we don’t make public policy based on what’s good for me and my family or you and your family or one couple.

BALDWIN: I’m just asking on a personal level. I’m just asking, personal level.

PERKINS: No, but I’m — but we’re engaged here in a discussion about public policy and what’s best for the nation, not anecdotes or what one couple likes or how this —

BALDWIN: But this issue is — it is personal.

PERKINS: I mean, look, I’m sure — look —

BALDWIN: It is personal as well.

PERKINS: But that’s not how we make public policy. Certainly there are some same-sex couple that are probably great parents, but that’s not what the overwhelming amount of social science shows us. And we’ve got some great single moms that are doing a great jobs. And we applaud them and encourage them. But we still know the best environment for a child is with a mom and a dad. And our policy should encourage —

BALDWIN: But shouldn’t public policy in part be dictated by evolving cultures, evolving demographics, reflecting that?

PERKINS: But we’re not evolving to a better standard when we look at children growing up without those critical role models. And, again, we’ve got 40 years of public policy or the research that’s come from the public policy that shows that we’ve not been moving in a better direction by moving away from that standard of marriage being at the center of the family of a mom and a dad. We’ve actually incurred tremendous costs as a society, both emotionally and financially.

BALDWIN: OK. I know — I know you don’t want to answer the personal questions, but I’m going to try again, Tony. I’m going to try again. And this is really just it for me today. Why do you — you’ve never been to a home of a same-sex couple. Why do homosexuals bother you so much? I mean would it be fair to characterize —

PERKINS: They don’t bother me. They don’t bother me.

BALDWIN: They don’t bother you?

PERKINS: No.

BALDWIN: Not at all.

PERKINS: I’m not going to — I’m not going to be silent while they try to redefine marriage in this country, change policy, what my children are taught in schools and what religious organizations can do. I’m not going to be silent nor are millions of other Christians across this country. It doesn’t mean that we have a dislike for homosexuals.

BALDWIN: But if they don’t bother you, then why shouldn’t they have the same right to get married?

PERKINS: They don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us. They don’t have a right to take away any religious freedom. They don’t have a right to step between me and what my child is taught. That’s what’s happening. That’s why people are getting involved. And that’s why this issue will not be resolved, whether the president says it should be or not. There are many, many Americans, as we’ve seen in every time — every time this has gone through the ballot box, Americans understand, the definition of a marriage is what it has been for 5,000 years, it’s the union of a man and a woman.

BALDWIN: Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. We’ll look for you at the top of the hour there on Capitol Hill with this group preaching what you just explained to us.

PERKINS: All right. OK, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Tony, thanks.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
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

Trump Axes Catholic Charities Funding for Migrant Kids Amid Pope Feud: Report

Published

on

Amid President Donald Trump’s escalating feud with Pope Leo XIV, the Trump administration has canceled an $11 million contract with Catholic Charities in Miami, Florida, to shelter and care for migrant children who enter the U.S. unaccompanied, a relationship that dates back to the 1960s, the Miami Herald reports.

“The U.S. government has abruptly decided to end more than 60 years of relationship with Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Miami,” Archbishop Thomas Wenski wrote, according to the Miami Herald. “The Archdiocese of Miami’s services for unaccompanied minors have been recognized for their excellence and have served as a model for other agencies throughout the country.”

Catholic Charities was contracted to operate a full-service child welfare program in the Miami-Dade area.

“Our track record in serving this vulnerable population is unmatched. Yet, the Archdiocese of Miami’s Catholic Charities’ services for unaccompanied minors has been stripped of funding and will be forced to shut down within three months,” Archbishop Wenski noted.

The Trump administration is citing a reduction in unaccompanied minors crossing the border, which the archdiocese acknowledges. But that population still exists, and it is unknown how many children will be uprooted and relocated, or where they will go.

The Department of Health and Human Services described the daily population of unaccompanied migrant children in the agency’s care as “significantly lower,” than it had been under the Biden administration.

Health and Human Services’ press secretary Emily G. Hillard suggested that the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s closure of unused facilities “continues efforts to stop illegal entry and the smuggling and trafficking of unaccompanied alien children.”

But Wenski called it “baffling that the U.S. government would shut down a program that it would be hard-pressed to replicate at the level of competence” shown by the church.

Describing being moved as “incredibly psychologically harmful” to the children, Robert Latham, associate director of the University of Miami Law School’s Children and Youth Law Clinic, “said any relocation to a new foster home or shelter likely would be traumatic for children who already have suffered uncertainty and loss.”

“For little kids, moving repeatedly creates bonding issues and destroys the sense of both self and community. They don’t know who they are and where they will be” from day to day, he said.

READ MORE: ‘Could Be Two, Could Be Three’: Trump Signals Readiness for New Supreme Court Picks

Last week, President Donald Trump took issue with the Pope’s call for peace.

“God does not bless any conflict,” Pope Leo wrote on social media. “Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of #Peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples.”

The Guardian called it a “rebuke” over the Iran war, and noted that while the Pope did not name names, his post criticized attempts to use religion to glorify the U.S. war in the Middle East.

Trump responded to the Pope’s remarks, saying that he had “nothing to apologize for,” and stated that the Pope was “wrong.”

The pope has continued his opposition to the Iran war.

On Tuesday, he wrote, “God’s heart is torn apart by wars, violence, injustice and lies. But our Father’s heart is not with the wicked, the arrogant, or the proud. God’s heart is with the little ones and the humble, and with them He builds up His Kingdom of love and peace day by day. Wherever there is love and service, God is there.”

Just days ago, Trump told reporters, “We don’t like a pope that’s gonna say that it’s okay to have a nuclear weapon. We don’t want a pope that says, crime is okay in our cities. I don’t like it. I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo. He’s a very liberal person, and he’s a man that doesn’t believe in stopping crime. He’s a man that doesn’t think that we should be toying with a country that wants a nuclear weapon so they can blow up the world.”

Trump also recently described the Pope as “Weak on Nuclear Weapons.”

READ MORE: ‘I Wasn’t That Involved’: Weakened Trump Tries to Rewrite History

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Could Be Two, Could Be Three’: Trump Signals Readiness for New Supreme Court Picks

Published

on

President Donald Trump says he’s ready should any Supreme Court justice decide to retire.

Just one day after Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune announced he is “prepared” should Justice Samuel Alito, 76, announce he is retiring — despite the jurist having made no public suggestion he plans to — President Trump announced on Wednesday he is also “prepared” to replace Alito, or others.

“It could be two, could be three, could be one. I don’t know — I’m prepared to do it,” Trump told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo in an interview, according to The Hill.

The president, who placed three conservative justices on the Supreme Court during his first term, told Bartiromo that Justice Alito is “one of the great justices of all time.”

“Justice Alito is an unbelievable justice and a brilliant justice and he gets the country,” Trump continued. “He does what’s right for the country.”

Trump said he has a shortlist of nominees should any justice decide to retire, but he is unsure that would happen this year, The Hill noted.

READ MORE: ‘I Wasn’t That Involved’: Weakened Trump Tries to Rewrite History

But Trump also appeared to signal that perhaps retiring before the midterm elections might be wise.

Being on the nation’s highest court is “probably not easy to give up for people, you know, they reach a certain age,” he told Bartiromo. “Ginsburg could not do it.”

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had been urged by the left to retire during President Barack Obama’s term, refused, and passed away while on the bench in 2020, handing Trump the right to nominate her replacement. He placed a conservative on the Court, further strengthening its conservative majority.

Justice Ginsburg, Trump told Bartiromo, “decided that she was going to live forever, and about two minutes after the election, she went out and I got to appoint somebody.”

“So, you know, you make the case that at a certain time you give it up… so that your ideology, your policies, your everything, would be of the kind that we like.”

U.S. News & World Report senior national political correspondent Olivier Knox commented on Trump’s remarks.

“I can’t decide if this is just organic chatter or if it’s a pressure campaign to get Alito to retire,” he wrote. “There’s been a LOT of this in the last couple of days. Thune, Grassley, etc.”

Indeed, the Washington Examiner’s David Sivak noted on Tuesday that Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley told him that “he’ll recommend to Trump that Mike Lee or Ted Cruz replace Samuel Alito, should he retire.”

“I hope he doesn’t retire,” Grassley said, “but if he does retire, I’m going to suggest that either Lee or Cruz be put on the Supreme Court.”

READ MORE: Voters in Military Towns Fear Trump Is ‘Bumbling’ US Into Another Iraq: Report

 

Continue Reading

News

‘I Wasn’t That Involved’: Weakened Trump Tries to Rewrite History

Published

on

Despite repeatedly endorsing Viktor Orbán, praising him as his “twin” in Europe, and dispatching Vice President JD Vance to Budapest to campaign for him, President Donald Trump now claims he had little to do with the far-right Christian nationalist prime minister’s reelection bid — which ended in a massive landslide defeat Sunday, ending 16 years of authoritarian rule.

“I wasn’t that involved in this one,” Trump said of Orbán’s failed reelection effort, telling ABC News’ Jonathan Karl that the Hungarian right-wing populist “was behind substantially,” while praising him as “a good man.”

Noting that Orbán is “a key figure in the global far-right movement and is also allied with Russian President Vladimir Putin,” The Daily Beast reports that Trump had been “insisting he wasn’t actively campaigning for him.”

Trump “had been posting on Truth Social before the election, urging people to vote for Orban, whom he has described as ‘a true friend,'” The Daily Beast reported. During his time in Hungary, Vice President Vance called the Hungarian leader a “wise and smart” man, while describing his authoritarian regime as a “model for the continent.”

READ MORE: Senate Republicans Are Prepared to Replace Alito — Before the Midterms: Report

But Trump’s support for the embattled Orbán has taken its toll. The Daily Beast describes him as “wounded” from his attempts to prop up the Hungarian illiberal nationalist ruler, and points to British think tank Chatham House, which suggested the White House’s “intervention” in Hungary “now looks more like a political own goal.”

Grégoire Roos, director of Chatham House’s Europe and Russia and Eurasia programs, noted that the Hungarian election “was monitored closely in the Oval Office,” and suggests there will be a cost.

“Several European far-right parties have already begun distancing themselves from Trump over his more erratic foreign-policy moves and this result may further accelerate a trend towards greater autonomy from MAGA. The question now is whether Washington adjusts its methods of influence in Europe or simply doubles down.”

For his part, Trump appears to have moved on.

ABC’s Karl reports that Trump told him he “likes” incoming Prime Minister Péter Magyar.

“I think the new man’s going to do a good job — he’s a good man,” Trump said. “I think he’s going to be good.”

READ MORE: Voters in Military Towns Fear Trump Is ‘Bumbling’ US Into Another Iraq: Report

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.