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.

BREAKING NEWS

Trump Lawyer’s ‘Critical Evidence’ Will Help DOJ Make Decision to Charge ‘Without Significant Delay’: Former Prosecutor

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 22, 2023

By

Donald Trump‘s attorney Evan Corcoran, who allegedly directed another Trump attorney to draft the false statement claiming all classified and sensitive documents had been returned, has been ordered to testify before a grand jury and hand over documents and records to Special Counsel Jack Smith in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents criminal investigation.

Trump appealed U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell’s decision ordering Corcoran to testify and hand over documents, including handwritten notes. The Appeals Court in light speed mode, rejected Trump’s appeal.

Corcoran will be testifying before the grand jury on Friday, CNN reports.

RELATED: ‘National Security Implications’: Former DOJ Official Speculates on Ruling Ordering Trump Attorney to Hand Over Docs

One former top DOJ official, Brandon Van Grack, says the “Special Counsel is about to get access to the most critical evidence in the case. Should allow DOJ to make a charging decision without significant delay.”

He did not define what “without significant delay” means in terms of days, weeks, or months.

Van Grack served at Main Justice for eleven years, including as a lead prosecutor in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, and later, as the Chief of the DOJ’s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit.

“The announcement from a panel of three judges in the appeals court – less than a day after Trump sought to put Corcoran’s testimony on hold – adds momentum to the special counsel investigation as it seeks to secure evidence that could make or break a federal criminal case against Trump,” CNN explains. “The Justice Department has successfully argued in court that prosecutors have enough evidence that Trump’s interactions with the lawyer were part of a possible crime that they can pierce the confidentiality of the conversations between the two.”

Continue Reading

BREAKING NEWS

‘National Security Implications’: Former DOJ Official Speculates on Ruling Ordering Trump Attorney to Hand Over Docs

Published

4 hours ago

on

March 22, 2023

By

A former top Dept. of Justice official says a federal judge’s expedited ruling ordering an attorney for Donald Trump to testify against his client before a grand jury and hand over documents very well may be related to “national security.”

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith had successfully made the case Donald Trump may have committed a crime, via his attorneys, in his classified documents case. That finding allowed her to invoke the crime-fraud exception, and order Trump attorney Evan Corcoran to testify before the grand jury investigating the ex-president’s unlawful retention and refusal to return hundreds of classified documents.

Former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann, who also worked for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and headed the DOJ’s Criminal Fraud Section, Wednesday afternoon on MSNBC said it’s possible Judge Howell’s expedited decisions were related to national security.

Tuesday night Judge Howell ordered DOJ to provide information by 6:00 AM Wednesday.

READ MORE: Jim Jordan’s Attack on Manhattan DA Will ‘Backfire’ and Allow Democrats to Expose Coordination With Trump: Columnist

Trump appealed Howell’s ruling, and Wednesday afternoon the Appeals Court denied his appeal related to the documents, Politico reports.

“I’ve never seen anything that quick. It’s very hard to know why. I have to say, to me, when I think about what can be a plausible reason– and this is pure speculation – is that there must be something in the papers that gave the judges concern about national security implications, because it’s such a short timeframe.”

“The reason this is a bombshell is you could end up with Evan Corcoran as a key, fundamental witness against Donald Trump in an obstruction of justice case and a false statements case,” Weissmann adds.

According to Politico, Wednesday’s appeals court ruling “effectively permits the Justice Department to circumvent Trump’s attorney-client privilege after a lower-court judge found that the documents likely contain evidence of a crime.”

NEW: Trump Lawyer’s ‘Critical Evidence’ Will Help DOJ Make Decision to Charge ‘Without Significant Delay’: Former Prosecutor

 

This article was updated to correctly spell Andrew Weissmann’s last name.

Continue Reading

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

Trump Appeals After Judge Agrees With Special Counsel on Crime-Fraud Exception and Requires His Attorney to Testify

Published

5 hours ago

on

March 22, 2023

By

Donald Trump’s attorneys have appealed a ruling that requires one of his lawyers to testify before a grand jury investigating his unlawful removal, retention, and refusal to return classified documents from the White House.

Attorneys for the Special Counsel “said there is evidence of a deliberate effort not to turn over all the material covered by the subpoena,” The Washington Post reports, citing people familiar with the matter.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell had reportedly agreed with Special Counsel Smith that there is sufficient evidence proving Donald Trump may have committed a crime via his attorneys, and ruled his attorney must testify before a grand jury. The ruling, which was not made public, was handed down Friday night, NBC News reported Wednesday afternoon.

Judge Howell “ruled in favor of applying the ‘crime fraud’ exception to Trump’s attorney-client privilege and ordered Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran to testify before the federal grand jury.”

READ MORE: ‘On Standby’: Experts Say Manhattan Hush Money Grand Jury Delay ‘Not All That Surprising’

Trump’s attorneys have already appealed the ruling.

“People familiar with the matter said an appeals panel has already begun reviewing the decision, after Trump’s lawyers appealed,” The Washington Post adds. “The extraordinarily quick timeline suggests that the judges — all nominated by Democratic presidents — intend to rule swiftly.”

Trump could take his case all the way to the Supreme Court, but The Post says it’s “not clear he would have a much better chance of success there.”

According to an NBC News report from October, Corcoran directed another Trump attorney, Christina Bobb, to sign the letter claiming a thorough search of Mar-a-Lago had been made and all classified or “sensitive” documents had been returned. That was proven untrue after federal agents, executing a search warrant, recovered hundreds of documents with classified markings.

NEW: ‘National Security Implications’: Former DOJ Official Speculates on Ruling Ordering Trump Attorney to Hand Over Docs

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.