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.

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

‘My Family in Danger’: Democratic Congressman Reveals Chilling Details of ‘Potential Plot’

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz Friday evening revealed the chilling details of an apparent potential assassination plot he says has endangered his life and his family. The Florida Democrat says police arrested a suspect who is a former felon, had body armor, a rifle, an antisemitic manifesto, with “only my name on the ‘target’ list.”

“The day before the election, I was notified by the Margate Police Department, located in my Congressional District, about a potential plot on my life,” Congresman Moskwitz said in a statement. “The individual in question was arrested not far from my home; he is a former felon who was in possession of a rifle, a suppressor, and body armor. Found with him was a manifesto that, among other things, included antisemitic rhetoric and only my name on the ‘target’ list. There are many other details that I will not disclose as I do not want to interfere with an ongoing investigation. I want to thank local law enforcement, the US Marshalls, the FBI, the US Capitol Police, and the US Attorney’s office.”

READ MORE: ‘Chief Shareholder in the Presidency’: Musk on Trump-Zelenskyy Mar-a-Lago Call Fuels Fears

“As someone who was appointed to the Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump, I understand the failures and importance of fixing the protection of our current and future Commander- In-Chief and Vice President.”

Rep. Moskowitz adds that, “At the same time, I am deeply worried about Congressional member security and the significant lack thereof when we are in the district. Regardless of our political affiliations or differences, we all have families we want to keep safe.”

In a post on social media, Moskowitz added, “Serving my constituents is a great honor, but it has put my family in danger.”

READ MORE: ‘Probably Illegal Rumors’: Trump Calls for Investigations — to Protect His Interests

Continue Reading

News

‘Chief Shareholder in the Presidency’: Musk on Trump-Zelenskyy Mar-a-Lago Call Fuels Fears

Published

on

Elon Musk joined Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, when the billionaire and President-elect were at Mar-a-Lago. The move is raising concerns about Musk’s potential role in the upcoming Republican administration, given his status as a federal contractor with access to U.S. defense secrets and relationships with foreign adversaries, including Russia, and its illegal war against Ukraine, as well as his personal socio-political statements about America.

Axios, in an exclusive on Friday, reported Musk’s presence on Trump’s call with President Zelenskyy, details of which “underscore how influential Musk could be in the second Trump administration,” and offer “uncertainty over how exactly Trump will approach Ukraine.”

“Trump’s public messages throughout the election campaign — promising a quick resolution to the war, declining to say which side he wanted to win and criticizing the massive aid packages flowing from Washington — raised alarm bells in Kyiv and throughout Europe,” Axios added, and claimed, “Trump has yet to speak with Vladimir Putin since the election.”

Axios also reported that Musk “joined Trump’s call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.”

READ MORE: ‘Probably Illegal Rumors’: Trump Calls for Investigations — to Protect His Interests

Last month a bombshell Wall Street Journal exclusive revealed Musk has “been in regular contact” and has had “secret conversations” with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, “since late 2022.”

Musk has also “forged deep business ties with U.S. military and intelligence agencies, giving him unique visibility into some of America’s most sensitive space programs,” The Journal reported. “SpaceX, which operates the Starlink service, won a $1.8 billion classified contract in 2021 and is the primary rocket launcher for the Pentagon and NASA. Musk has a security clearance that allows him access to certain classified information.”

Calling Musk “a linchpin of U.S. space efforts,” The Journal noted that “Putin asked the billionaire to avoid activating his Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping.”

During his presidential campaign, Trump claimed if elected, he would end Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine even before being sworn in to office.

READ MORE: ‘Inexperienced, Loyalist Clowns’: National Security Expert Slams Possible Trump CIA Picks

“Donald Trump has failed to meet one of his highest-profile pre-election promises—when the war in Ukraine will end,” reports The Daily Beast on Friday. “’I would fix that within 24 hours. And, if I win, before I get into the office, I will have that war settled. A hundred percent sure,’ Trump said on Hannity in 2023. It’s been over 48 hours since Trump won the presidential election, and there’s no end in sight for the conflict. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Trump actually does not have a specific plan to get Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian president Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, and is fielding competing ideas from advisers and allies.”

The Daily Beast’s Julia Davis posted this video of Trump:

Meanwhile, news of Musk being at Mar-a-Lago and intimately involved in conversations and possibly negotiations with Trump, Zelenskyy, and possibly even Putin or other world leaders, is drawing great concern.

On Wednesday, Kai Trump, daughter of Donald Trump Jr., posted this photo, leading The New Republic to ask, “Why the hell is Elon Musk in the first Trump family photo after the election?”

“The billionaire tech CEO spent election night with Trump, showing that he is now a part of the president-elect’s inner circle,” TNR added. “The photo perhaps is a look at who will be the public faces of the next first family.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired Naval War College professor who has a PhD in government from Georgetown University commented on Musk being in the call to Zelenskyy: “This is dangerous and stupid, but it’s what America voted for. They must have doubled over laughing in Moscow hearing about this.”

The New Yorker’s award-winning investigative journalist Jane Mayer, responding to Musk’s presence on the call to Zelenskyy, asked: “Barred by the Constitution from being president because he was born abroad, will Musk be the shadow president?”

And Susan Glasser, also of The New Yorker, added: “Wow. A preview of what happens when the world’s richest man is also chief shareholder in the US presidency.”

Similarly, Al Jazeera’s Gabriel Elizondo wrote: “Musk buying Twitter and then going all in with Trump was a bet that is paying off as it looks like he will be majority shareholder in the US Presidency the next 4 years.”

Professor of public policy Robert Reich, a former U.S. Secretary of Labor remarked, “Shocking, but not surprising. Musk put more than $130M of his own money into this election, and he’ll expect to get his money’s worth. I think he’ll be calling a lot of the shots in the Musk-Trump administration.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Someone’s Got to Run the Deportation Camps’: Prison Stocks Soar as Trump Agenda Unfolds

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Probably Illegal Rumors’: Trump Calls for Investigations — to Protect His Interests

Published

on

Although his inauguration is still months away, Donald Trump, just days after winning back the White House, has already started calling for investigations aimed at safeguarding his personal financial interests.

Trump is the majority shareholder in DJT, the Trump Media & Technology Group that holds his Truth Social social media company. His stake is reportedly valued around $4 billion.

“Donald Trump has made clear that upon his return to office, he intends to sic the authorities under his control on his political enemies and critics. He’s getting started with Truth Social speculators,” Rolling Stone reports.

READ MORE: ‘Inexperienced, Loyalist Clowns’: National Security Expert Slams Possible Trump CIA Picks

“The president-elect’s revenge fantasy agenda is getting an early start with a probe into those speculating about Truth Social,” Rolling Stone noted. “Inauguration Day is still months away, but the newly minted president-elect is wasting no time adding to his list of targets – starting with people speculating that he may sell Truth Social.

DJT stock “soared Friday after President-elect Donald Trump reaffirmed he has no plans to sell off his stake in the Truth Social operator, and called on authorities to investigate whoever suggested otherwise,” CNBC reports. “Trump’s announcement, posted on Truth Social, was his first personally written statement since his stunning victory against Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in Tuesday’s presidential election.”

If Trump were to sell shares from his DJT holdings, that “would likely further depress the price of Trump Media’s shares,” NPR reported in September.

In his call for an investigation, Trump on Friday wrote: “There are fake, untrue, and probably illegal rumors and/or statements made by, perhaps, market manipulators or short sellers, that I am interested in selling shares of Truth. THOSE RUMORS OR STATEMENTS ARE FALSE. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF SELLING! I hereby request that the people who have set off these fake rumors or statements, and who may have done so in the past, be immediately investigated by the appropriate authorities. Truth is an important part of our historic win, and I deeply believe in it. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The federal government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, CREW, Friday warned: “As a publicly traded company, Truth Social offers even more ways for foreign governments, special interests and wealthy donors to personally enrich Trump as they endeavor to curry favor with him and his administration.”

READ MORE: ‘Someone’s Got to Run the Deportation Camps’: Prison Stocks Soar as Trump Agenda Unfolds

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.