Connect with us

Watch: Top Anti-Gay Bigot’s Marriage Fibs Decimated By Conservative Lawyer-And Fox News Anchor

Published

on

Tony Perkins appeared on Fox News Sunday thinking he could spread his anti-gay marriage hate to a friendly audience, but his claims were decimated and debunked by one of America’s top conservative attorneys and the Fox News host.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins just had a very bad visit on “Fox News Sunday.” His center seat apparently was the designated hot seat. On the left was former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson, one of the two attorneys who sought the demise of Prop 8 by bringing it all the way to the Supreme Court, then went on to win marriage equality in Virginia. On the right was Fox News anchor Chris Wallace. 

Perkins might have expected a grand old time where he could spew his packaged talking points about poor persecuted Christian wedding cake vendors and victimized parents forced to find their children learning that gay people aren’t the monsters their parents portray. 

But he was wrong.

Perkins tried to tell Olson his comparison of court decisions on same-sex marriage to court decisions on interracial marriage were wrong.

“Apples and oranges,” Perkins insisted, “because we’re talking about an arbitrary boundary created by man between the races. That doesn’t exist in nature. There is a boundary between people of the same sex getting married. They can’t procreate. They can’t — there’s nothing in nature to say that’s normal.”

Except, of course, the hundreds of species in which homosexuality have been widely documented.

Perkins’ career as an anti-gay activist is so rabid under his leadership the Southern Poverty Law Center was forced to designate the Family Research Council as a certified anti-gay hate group. 

So it’s not surprising he would claim on Fox News that the U.S. Supreme Court’s explanation of the purpose of marriage is wrong.

“I’d like to ask Ted [Olson],” Perkins says, “what’s the purpose of marriage?”

“The purpose of marriage is what the Supreme Court has said 14 times,” Olson replies. “It’s a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty, and being with the person you love and forming a part of the community and being treated equally with the rest of society.”

“That’s not true,” is Perkins’ retort.

And there was more:

PERKINS: Well, we know from the social science that children do best with a mom and a dad. That’s why our policies in this country have preferred marriage and given benefits to it.

But let me — if love is the factor, what boundaries are there?

OLSON: You want the sky to fall because two people living next door to you —

PERKINS: No, I —

OLSON: What court after court after court has said, that allowing people of the same sex to marry the person that they love, to be part of the community and to be treated equally, does no damage to heterosexual marriage.

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: And court after court after court has said children living in a same-sex relationship do as well or better than people in other communities.

PERKINS: The court doesn’t study this social —

OLSON: The court heard evidence.

PERKINS: Let me ask you, what are the boundaries, though? If it’s just love, what are the boundaries? Where can we go with marriage?

WALLACE: What are you suggesting? That they’re going to be polygamy. That people will be marrying their pets?

(CROSSTALK)

PERKINS: No, I didn’t say that. If we remove the natural established boundaries for marriage, the union of a man and woman, we have removed those boundaries, those guardrails.

There’s no arbitrary boundary —

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: What about the argument that Ted Olson makes, which is, all right, you and your wife live happily in this house, there’s a same-sex couple living here. What’s the damage to you?

PERKINS: Let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about the wedding vendors that have been put out of business. Let’s talk —

WALLACE: I’m not talking about that. That’s a different issue.

PERKINS: No, it’s —

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: It’s a different issue. I’m asking you, what’s the impact on you and your family to have these people living next door?

PERKINS: Let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about my children all of a sudden, in school are taught values and morals that contradict what I teach as a parent at home. That’s happening already across the country in those states that have recognized and forced same-sex marriage on the states.

Let’s talk about the business place, let’s about Aaron and Melissa Klein, a bakery in Oregon, forced out of business, forced to pay $150,000 in fines, simply because they didn’t want to participate in a same-sex marriage.

WALLACE: We’re gong to get to that in a second. But your argument as to whether somehow this damages the Perkins to have another couple next door?

OLSON: Well, everyone who has ever talked about this says there’s no heterosexual couple that is going to decide to get divorced or not to get married or not to raise children just because another couple next to them is treated equally and with respect and decency under our Constitution. That is why we have courts.

The same argument Mr. Perkins was making was made with respect to interracial marriages in 1967 — 30 some states at one point prohibited interracial marriages.

And talk about the color of the skin? People were making the same arguments. Marriage is wrong between people of different races. We have to stop that.

When the Supreme Court finally acted, 16 states were still prohibiting interracial marriages.

As far as the marriage vendors, the people in the flower business or in the — in the cake business or whatever it happens to be, we have a civil rights law that say if you’re going to engage in commerce, you’re not going to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, sex or race. That’s a simple solution to the problem. Massachusetts —

PERKINS: Driving them out of business?

OLSON: Massachusetts allowed same-sex marriage 10 years ago. Nobody has been put out of marriage —

(CROSSTALK)

OLSON: It’s a canard.

PERKINS: It’s not.

Clearly, if “traditional marriage” advocates have lost Fox News, same-sex marriage has won.

And for the record, Perkins is, to be kind, twisting facts.

First, the “wedding vendors that have been put out of business,” claim is false. No wedding vendor — say, cake baker or event space owner — who has refused to do business with a same-sex couple has been “put out of business.” They may have been fined for violating civil rights laws, they may have even voluntarily chosen to move their business online or close up shop, but that was their decision, not the state’s or any same-sex couple’s.

Next, Perkins needs to stop fibbing about the Massachusetts adoption agency. The fact is Catholic Charities, despite the vote of its board, opted to stop doing business in Massachusetts rather than allow gay people or same-sex couples to adopt the children in their care. It was their choice, they were not, “driven out of business.”

Finally, those “studies” Perkins like to bring up were of heterosexual couples raising children compared to heterosexual single parents raising children. Same-sex parents weren’t part of the equation. 

Watch:

 

Image via YouTube
Transcript via Fox News
Hat tip and video: David Edwards at Raw Story

 

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

‘Might Use it to Vote’: Kudlow and Blackburn Fearmonger Biden Giving Undocumented Green Cards

Published

11 hours ago

on

May 15, 2024

By

U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Fox News Business host Larry Kudlow are promoting a false, fearmongering conspiracy theory President Joe Biden will be handing out green cards to undocumented immigrants in an effort to help them vote. Their remarks come as ex-president Donald Trump, running to retake the White House, has amped up his anti-immigrant focus.

Kudlow on Wednesday said he worries “a lot” that President Biden will be giving green cards to undocumented immigrants who will use them to vote. Senator Blackburn agreed, telling the former Trump National Economic Council Director, “they’re gonna try to vote.”

Green card holders are not U.S. citizens, and only U.S. citizens can vote, with a handful of exceptions in local jurisdictions, but only U.S, citizens can vote in federal elections. Presenting a green card as “proof” of citizenship in states that require it to vote would have the exact opposite effect, proving ineligibility.

Kudlow and Blackburn falsely suggested both undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers who are legally in the United States, may be voting using green cards, with Sen. Blackburn increasing the fearmongering by falsely implying all undocumented immigrants are dangerous.

READ MORE: ‘Long History of Playing Games’: Biden Campaign Shuts Down Trump’s Tantrum

“I mean, I don’t know, is Biden – he’s not going to address any of that,” Kudlow told Blackburn. “He’s not going to really reform asylum policy. He’s gonna give everybody [a] green card. That’s my biggest concern. As you probably know, ma’am, you know, you have a green card or some kind of temporary visa, you might use it to vote. You might use it to vote, even though you’re not a citizen. That worries me a lot.”

“Well, it should,” the Tennessee Republican who has a history of fear-mongering, and has been accused of promoting white Christian nationalism, told Kudlow.

“These are really bad people and your audience needs to think of this in terms of the population of a city of that size, of one and a half million people, and then you’re so right there,” Blackburn said. “This administration is saying we’re going to give you IDs this summer. We’re going to give you work permits if you’re a[n asylum] parolee, what are they gonna do, they’re gonna try to vote.”

“Yes, ma’am,” Kudlow replied.

Watch below or at this link.

READ MORE: Johnson Promotes Making ‘Crime a Crime Again’ After Standing Up for Trump at Courthouse

Continue Reading

News

‘Long History of Playing Games’: Biden Campaign Shuts Down Trump’s Tantrum

Published

14 hours ago

on

May 15, 2024

By

The Biden campaign on Wednesday proposed a series of two debates with very specific rules, including shutting off the microphone of the candidate not answering a question, and Donald Trump quickly accepted the invitations, including the stipulations, before turning around and proposing an additional series of debates.

In a stinging response the Biden campaign rejected Trump’s proposal.

“Donald Trump has a long history of playing games with debates: complaining about the rules, breaking those rules, pulling out at the last minute, or not showing up at all – which he’s done repeatedly in all three cycles he’s run for president,” said Biden-Harris 2024 Chair Jen O’Malley Dillon in a statement received by NCRM. “He said he would debate President Biden anytime, anywhere, anyplace. In fact, he’s said and posted it dozens of times with varying degrees of comprehension and basic grammar. President Biden made his terms clear for two one-on-one debates, and Donald Trump accepted those terms. No more games. No more chaos, no more debate about debates. We’ll see Donald Trump on June 27th in Atlanta – if he shows up.”

Politico warned Wednesday afternoon the “agreement does not ensure that either of the debates will happen. In fact, shortly after the campaigns agreed to two debates, the Trump campaign proposed two more.”

READ MORE: Johnson Promotes Making ‘Crime a Crime Again’ After Standing Up for Trump at Courthouse

Early Wednesday morning President Joe Biden posted a video to social media, saying, “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hasn’t shown up for a debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I’ll even do it twice.”

Biden also ridiculed Trump’s schedule, which currently has him in court four days a week.

“I hear you’re free on Wednesdays,” Biden mocked.

Barely hours later, Biden, keeping the same tone, posted to social media: “I’ve also received and accepted an invitation to a debate hosted by ABC on Tuesday, September 10th. Trump says he’ll arrange his own transportation. I’ll bring my plane, too. I plan on keeping it for another four years.”

Trump on his social media website wrote, “It is my great honor to accept the CNN Debate against Crooked Joe Biden, the WORST PRESIDENT in the History of the United States and a true Threat to Democracy, on June 27th. Likewise, I accept the ABC News Debate against Crooked Joe on September 10th. Thank you, DJT!”

Also on his Truth Social page Wednesday, Trump had written, “I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue, although Biden is supposedly afraid of crowds – That’s only because he doesn’t get them. Just tell me when, I’ll be there. ‘Let’s get ready to Rumble!!!'”

CNN’s Kristin Holmes reported Wednesday afternoon the Trump campaign is “a little bit irked right now, the fact that Joe Biden somehow took over the debate narrative despite the fact that Donald Trump has been using this as a narrative at all his campaign rallies.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Why Are One in Five GOP Voters Still Voting for Nikki Haley Over Donald Trump?

Continue Reading

News

Johnson Promotes Making ‘Crime a Crime Again’ After Standing Up for Trump at Courthouse

Published

16 hours ago

on

May 15, 2024

By

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, promoting a California sheriff who was once a member of a far-right extremist antigovernment group that has been called “instrumental” in the January 6 insurrection, on Wednesday demanded making “crimes criminal again” just one day after traveling to the Criminal Courts Building in lower Manhattan to stand up for Donald Trump. The indicted ex-president faces 34 felony charges in his election subversion, business records falsification, and “hush money” trial.

“We’ve got to make crimes criminal again,” Speaker Johnson told reporters at a “Back the Blue” Police Week news conference Wednesday, paraphrasing Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. “I mean, it’s just common sense. And I think everybody in the country who looks at this objectively understands that anybody who’s not involved in the radical woke progressive left understands clearly that you gotta maintain the peace.”

Sheriff Bianco had been invited to speak at the House GOP event. In 2021, NPR reported he “defended” his membership in the Oath Keepers extremist group, which he insisted stands “for protecting the Constitution.”

READ MORE: Johnson Would Contest 2024 Election Results Under the Same ‘Circumstances’

“If you love America, if you’re proud to be an American and you support the Constitution, you are labeled as an extremist,” Bianco said.

Speaking at the House GOP Back the Blue event Wednesday, Bianco launched an attack on the left.

“Over the past decade or so, the rule of law has been severely eroded by a sick and twisted progressive social experiment, fraudulently called criminal justice reform. In this alternate universe, law enforcement officers are the bad guys,  criminals are somehow victims of society. We cannot have a country without respect for law enforcement and adherence to the law and order of our country. There must be consequences for criminal behavior. It is time to make crime a crime again.”

The Speaker on Wednesday also slammed Attorney General Merrick Garland, declaring, “the Department of Justice has clearly been politicized. Some of us consider this actually to be a weaponized DOJ and Merrick Garland is in charge. He is the Attorney General at the top, and I think that they have, they have used our system of justice against political opponents, of course, the most prominent of which is Donald J. Trump. I was with him yesterday in Manhattan, and many in the press have asked, ‘Why did you go there?’ Because I’m a former litigator, I’m a I’m an attorney. This is an egregious violation. a travesty of justice. They are using the judicial system for political purposes and this is something that framers warned us against.”

The Associated Press on Tuesday reported Speaker Johnson had become “the highest-ranking Republican to show up at court, embrace the former president’s claims of political persecution and attack the U.S. system of justice.”

READ MORE: ‘Grave Danger’: Trump’s ‘Raw Display’ of Power at Court Alarms Conservative

“It was a remarkable moment in modern American politics: The House speaker amplifying Trump’s defense and turning the Republican Party against the federal and state legal systems that are foundational to the U.S. government and a cornerstone of democracy,” the AP continued. “Johnson, who is second in line for the presidency, called the court system ‘corrupt.'”

“The speaker is leading a growing list of Republican lawmakers who are criticizing the American judicial system as they rally to Trump’s side, appearing at the courthouse to defend the party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Trump is accused of having arranged secret payments to a porn actress to hide negative stories during his successful 2016 campaign for president.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.