Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) has come out for marriage equality:
CLINTON: LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones, and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage. That’s why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law, embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and all Americans.
Watch Clinton’s full remarks in a video released by the Human Rights Campaign:
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton was outspoken supporter of LGBT equality, but like President Obama at the time, had not yet come out for marriage equality. During her tenure as Secretary, she largely stayed silent on political issues, but did provide clues that her position had changed. In June 2011, Clinton offered her approval of New York’s passage of marriage equality, calling the legislature’s vote “historic.” In December 2011, she delivered amonumental speech to the United Nations, declaring that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights” and that to support LGBT equality is to be “on the right side of history.”
The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization passed through the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, by a vote of 78 to 22. Of those opposing the legislation, all 22 were Republican men. Every female Senator supported the bill.
Among the most notable votes against the bill were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Here’s a look at all 22 opponents of VAWA:
VAWA expired during the previous Congress, and because of Republican opposition to provisions for Native American, undocumented, and LGBT victims of domestic violence, the different versions approved by the House and by the Senate were never reconciled, and the bill died without final passage at the end of 2012.
Since its inception in 1994, VAWA has established a system for helping women in danger. The law created the National Domestic Violence Hotline, made stalking illegal, and helped drive down the number of partner homicides.
Two Senators — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) — also offered significant amendments to the VAWA bill. Grassley’s amendment stripped all Native American, LGBT, and undocumented victim protections. It was voted down on Thursday of last week. Cornyn’s, aimed exclusively on the bill’s language relating to tribal lands, failed on Monday.
Last week, eight Senators voted against even moving to debate on the revived legislation, and they are among those who voted against its passage. Four of them did so because their radical interpretation of the constitution precludes federal protection for domestic violence victims.
The version passed by the Senate today will next go to the House for a vote, where it is expected to encounter some difficulties, particularly over the protections of tribal women included in the bill.
President Obama took a final glance at over 800,000 cheering Americans, paused for a moment and said “I want to take a look, one more time…I’m not going to see again.” The United States witnessed history and with his eyes tearing up, the president walked off the stage and was set to start his second term as the president of the United States.
As President Obama continued through his second inaugural address, the tone of his second term became clear. Unlike some other speeches, President Obama used his platform Monday afternoon to address topics that, at times, seemed to linger in the background of his first term agenda. There were many takeaways following the speech, and here are just a few.
1.Climate change will be a major issue over the next four years:
During President Obama’s speech, the president addressed climate change and the adverse effects that ignoring the problem could cause. While many on the far right continue to push false theories that climate change and global warming are “conspiracy theories” from the “liberal” media, the reality is that climate change is very real and action needs to be taken. President Obama made it a point to bring up the controversial topic, laying the foundation for future legislation over the next four years.
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.”
2.The push for LGBT equality will only continue:
For the first time in an inaugural address, the LGBT community were brought up by name to the delight of over hundreds of thousands of screaming supporters. President Obama has made progress on LGBT rights over his first term, from repealing Don’t ask, Don’t tell, to openly favoring same-sex marriage. While the majority of Americans now support marriage equality, the push back from the Republican party and the far right shows no sign of slowing down and neither does the president.
“It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
3.President Obama will continue to fight for the “big three”:
One major difference between Democrats and Republicans is their idea of what the proper role of government should be. While Republicans claim to want a small government, they increase the size of its role when it fits their party’s ideology. The GOP push for a reduced role of government when it might limit the profits of large corporation or level the playing field between management and labor, but when they can increase government to attack women’s rights or increase military spending, they jump at the chance. With the economy still struggling, Republicans continue to fight for cuts to necessary programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Knowing the fight will continue, President Obama drew his line in the sand.
“We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”
4. Women will have a president who will fight for them:
The phrase “War on Women” was a popular one this past election cycle, with both sides of the argument letting their voice be heard. Whether it’s the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke feud or the talking heads on Fox News, the fight for women’s rights (pay equality, contraception) will surely continue during the president’s second term and President Obama seems up for the fight.
”It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.”
The next four years will prove to be a major fork in the road for the United States and President Obama is driving the car. With a divided congress in front of him, President Obama will have to decide which way the country is going and mold his own legacy.
To read the full transcript of President Obama’s inaugural address, visit the Boston Globe.
During a Thursday interview where Tony Perkins blamed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for the recent shooting of a Family Research Council (FRC) employee, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly took the opportunity to insist he did not “exacerbate” the situation that led to the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller by calling him a “baby killer.”
“Now you may remember back in 2009, some in the liberal press accused me encouraging the assassination of late-term abortionist George Tiller in Kansas,” O’Reilly said.
As PBS’ Nownoted, O’Reilly had mentioned Tiller’s name on 27 episodes of his Fox News show, often calling him “Tiller the Baby Killer” without attributing the label to anyone. He also said Tiller had “blood on his hands,” was guilty of “Nazi stuff” and was “operating death mills.”
“I never called him a killer,” O’Reilly insisted on Thursday, even though PolitiFact found that the Fox News host had used the term “baby killer” to describe Tiller at least 24 times.
“I simply referred to what Tiller was doing in detail and the press hounded me for it,” O’Reilly continued, bringing on Family Research Council President Tony Perkins to talk about the most recent shooting.
“I believe that the Southern Poverty Law Center is responsible for creating an environment that led to this,” Perkins explained. “[Your critics are] saying you are using hate speech — well, the Southern Poverty Law Center — because they disagree with our position on marriage and certain religious issues — have labeled us a hate group, and that gives license to lunatics like this that come in and shoot innocent people.”
“It’s a shocking situation,” O’Reilly agreed. “And as we said in the Tiller situation, there’s no excuse for it. I didn’t exacerbate that situation.”
“And I don’t know about the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the self-proclaimed culture warrior added. “We will check that out. Absolutely.”
In a statement released on Thursday, Southern Poverty Law Center senior fellow Mark Potok said that his organization “deplores all violence” and Perkins was just using the tragedy to “score points.”
“Perkins’ accusation is outrageous,” Potok wrote. “The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people — not, as some claim, because it opposes same-sex marriage. The FRC and its allies on the religious right are saying, in effect, that offering legitimate and fact-based criticism in a democratic society is tantamount to suggesting that the objects of criticism should be the targets of criminal violence.”
Potok pointed out that Perkins had claimed that that pedophilia is “a homosexual problem” and another official at the Family Research Council had said he wanted to “export homosexuals from the United States.”
“Perkins and his allies, seeing an opportunity to score points, are using the attack on their offices to pose a false equivalency between the SPLC’s criticisms of the FRC and the FRC’s criticisms of LGBT people,” Potok Concluded. “The FRC routinely pushes out demonizing claims that gay people are child molesters and worse — claims that are provably false. It should stop the demonization and affirm the dignity of all people.”
On Monday, a Baptist Press story quoted Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy admitting his company’s anti-gay ideology — a stance the company previously attempted to deny. But after two days of Cathy boasting about the story, the company’s Facebook page now features a message flatly contradicting its head.
In his interview with the Baptist Press, Cathy admitted that the company indeed has an anti-gay political agenda. When asked about reports that the company was against same-sex marriage, he told the paper “Well, guilty as charged,” adding:
We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit… We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.
Cathy reinforced his views in a radio interview, in which he asked “God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.” He continued his anti-LGBT campaign Wednesday on Twitter, twice bragging that the Baptist Press interview had “lit up the gay community.”
Today’s statement on the the Chick-fil-a Facebook page takes the exact opposite view. The company now claims:
The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.
Taking a stand against domestic violence is a start. Trying to get the idiots (on the Right) in Congress to renew the Violence Against Women Act is like pulling teeth. And they claim there’s no war against women coming from their camp…
Domestic violence and sexual assault. The original and literal war on women. And now, the Republicans in Congress are refusing to re-authorize the assistance for abuse victims. Yesterday, Vice President Biden gave a sobering speech on the importance of the Violence Against Women Act, genuinely stunned that the GOP has gone down the road this far. Joe Biden is not a Johnny come lately to this fight. He is the original author of the VAWA. He is the original author of the law.
Republicans are blocking it in the Senate right now, and even if the Democrats can muster enough votes to overcome a filibuster, the Republican House is not so keen on bothering to stop domestic violence. Why? There are stuff in there that are not “consensus items”, argue Republicans.
Iowa Senator Charles Grassley (R), who leads opposition to the law’s renewal, said, “I wish we could proceed in a consensus fashion again. But there are provisions in the bill before us that have never been part of VAWA before. They’re not consensus items.”
Well, what are these non-consensus items that’s forcing the Republicans hands to put at risk resources to fight sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence and physical abuse? What is the big poison pill? Not to spoil the surprise, but it’s teh gays, teh “illegals” and teh Indians.
If you ask why the Republicans are holding it up – other than their fierce hatred for anything the administration is for – they have an interesting answer: it’s because this version of VAWA includes protection for people who they do not believe deserve equal protection of the laws: LGBT people, undocumented immigrants, and native Americans. Because, you know, gay people don’t experience domestic violence (or maybe if we do), sexual battery against women is fine so long as the woman doesn’t have papers, and native American reservations don’t deserve any federal funds for housing and protecting victims of sexual assault because… well, just because.
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has put together the most succinct statement rebutting the Republican disgraceful opposition to the bill.
“Whether you are gay or straight, whether you are Caucasian or Native American, whoever you are–you should have access to services that protect you from domestic violence. It is very important for millions of American women all across the country.
“I ask those who are threatening to block this bill: If the victim is in a same-sex relationship, is the violence and danger any less real?
“If a family comes to this country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say, ‘Well, you’re illegal, I’m sorry, you don’t deserve any protection?’
That is exactly what the Republicans are saying. If you’re gay, or transgender, then you deserve to be beaten up at home, and suffer sexual and physical assaults at the hands of a partner in the dark corner of social stigma and a lack of resources. If you are undocumented and your husband or boyfriend is assaulting you, you should have no place to go. If you’re a native American, you’re just shit outta luck.
Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land and two dozen other conservative leaders urged the Judiciary Committee to reject the bill, claiming VAWA would harm the family while maintaining programs that are ineffective. They acknowledged the “very real problem of violence against women and children,” but countered with VAWA “encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence.” The letter also indicated the latest version of VAWA would add expensive programs, including one that would have the effect of re-educating “school children into domestic violence ideology.”
That’s nice. VAWA “encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence.” Does it ever occur to these morons that the building blocks of a family – love, faith, trust, care, and respect - are decimated the moment domestic violence is perpetrated? The demise of the family does not come from interventions to assist the victims of domestic violence; it comes from the perpetration of domestic violence itself. A family where domestic violence is the norm is already demised.
But, when ending domestic violence means breaking up family – after all, the battered wife may have to get a divorce from her husband who might one day kill her – I suppose it’s nice to know that the conservative movement would rather see continued battery of the abused instead. After all, how dare you suggest women (or men) be able to escape from a “family” that gives them a black eye once every night?
It says something about conservative family values. When the social pressure to keep a dysfunctional unit nonetheless intact takes precedence over the protection of the abused, that is what a conservative family values society looks like. Good to know.
Nah, there’s no Republican war on women. Why do you ask?
I feel like Alice when she fell through the rabbit hole. Everything in the current GOP presidential campaigns appear to be getting curioser and curioser…
On yesterday’s Meet The Press, host David Gregory challenged Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann on some of her anti-gay views. After grilling her about whether sexual orientation would be a factor she’d consider in making presidential appointments, he asked whether a same-sex couple raising children constitutes a “family.” She doesn’t:
GREGORY: Can a gay couple who adopt children, in your mind, be considered a “family”?
BACHMANN: When it comes to marriage, and family, my opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think that’s been my view —
GREGORY: So a gay couple with kids would not be considered a “family” to you?
BACHMANN: You know, all of these kind of questions really aren’t about what people are concerned about right now.
Bachmann then tried to downplay the importance of the question, even though, as Gregory pointed out, Bachmann has said that same-sex marriage is a “defining political issue of our time.” Bachmann simply responded, “I think my views are clear.”
Watch it (starting at 2:45):
The 2010 Census shows that there are at least 13,718 same-sex couples living in Bachmann’s home state of Minnesota, and 2,372 of those couples report raising children. If those are not “families,” it’s unclear what Bachmann thinks they might be.
I think Marcus Bachmann brought this on himself. If you call average American citizens, who’s sexual orientation is their business, “barbarians”, those words will come back to bite you in the butt!
A group of gay rights activists targeted a Minnesota clinic owned by Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband Marcus in a prank involving glitter on Thursday.
The situation that unfolded at Bachmann & Associates Inc. comes in the wake of reports on controversial therapy methods allegedly practiced at the center. The Nation recently reported that the clinic offers reparative therapy, which the publication explains treats being gay as a curable disorder.
Earlier this month, when a reporter for Iowa-based station WQAD asked Bachmann to weigh in on such practices and whether they are used at the Minnesota clinic, the conservative congresswomandeclined to address the matter.
Here’s an excerpt of a release issued by the activists involved in the prank at the clinic:
Today a horde of gay barbarians descended upon Michele and Marcus Bachmann’s “pray away the gay” clinic and demanded that Marcus come out and discipline them for their “deviant” behavior.
Marcus Bachmann, who conducts “reparative therapy” at the clinic intended to convert homosexuals, has said that gays are “barbarians who need to be disciplined.” The horde requested to speak directly with Bachmann and experience some “discipline” for themselves.
When Marcus was no where to be found, the barbarians glittered the empty waiting room and reception area while chanting, “You can’t pray away the gay — baby, I was born this way!”
The action was organized by the same young man who threw glitter on Newt Gingrich, starting a national trend in political protest of anti-LGBT sentiments from political candidates and campaigns.
“Michele and Marcus Bachmann think gay people are barbarians?” asked LGBT activist Nick Espinosa. “I think its clear to everyone who the real barbarians are, based on the Bachmanns’ archaic views on LGBT equality.”
Espinosa, who the Associated Press notes has also used the name Robert Erickson, posted videoof the incident online. In May, he pulled a similar stunt on GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and his wife Callista in Minneapolis.
Critics lash the tech giant for approving an app that claims to convert gay users to heterosexuality.
Exodus International, an iPhone app created by a Christian group of the same name, claims that homosexuality is a choice — and promises that the app’s users will gain “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus.” Apple approved the Exodus International app, rating it four out of five stars which indicates “no objectionable content,” although the app calls homosexuality “satanic.” That decision spurred a backlash from gay-rights groups, who want the app taken off the market. Should Apple comply?
Apple needs to dump this app now: The “hateful and bigoted” Exodus app certainly qualifies as “offensive material,” says nonprofit Truth Wins Out, which organized a petition drive against Apple. Every reliable medical organization has denounced so-called “reparative therapy” for homosexuality, and it’s “particularly galling” that Exodus is marketing its app to young people, given the wave of recent LGBT suicides. Apple bans racist content; why the “double standard”? “Gay rights petition: Demand that Apple remove ‘ex-gay’ iPhone app”
Indeed, Apple is being terribly inconsistent: Famously “stringent,” Apple self-righteously blocks even slightly pornographic apps to “protect our minds from filth,” says Jennifer Scott at IT Pro. And yet, “homophobia seems to pass muster.” For a supposedly “forward-thinking company” to approve such a “horrific app… sickens me to the core.” “Apple, homophobia is worse than porn ok?”
It may be distasteful, but Apple shouldn’t censor this app: “At the risk of putting myself at the center of a firestorm of disapproval,” says Victoria Pynchon at Forbes, I have to say this isn’t hate speech. It’s “simply the expression of religious beliefs with which I, and many other people, disagree.” While countless Americans — and many liberal churches — are rejecting such anti-gay ideas, it’s not the job of Apple or any other company to “serve as our national gatekeeper” and silence such religious stances, no matter how outrageous. “The internet, freedom of speech, and the anti-gay app”
I feel sorry for Cindy McCain. John McCain just couldn’t stand that his wife publicly acknowledged that she does not agree with him and his push to keep Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell status quo.
Just when it appeared she had once again found her own voice, Old McCain shuts her up…
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) insisted on Sunday that there was no rift of opinion between him and his wife over the issue of repealing the military’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy. Cindy McCain doesn’t endorse immediate repeal despite recording an ad accusing political leaders of forcing gay servicemen to live a lie, her husband stressed.
“I respect the First Amendment rights of every member of my family,” Senator McCain joked in what was his 59th appearance on Meet The Press.
The Senator was confirming a clarification of position that his wife had made two days prior. Earlier in the week, Cindy McCain appeared in an ad for the NOH8 campaign, an organization that promotes the rights of LGBT youth. But on Friday she said she backed her husband’s position on the controversial policy, which is that another study must be done to see whether the law should or should not be repealed.
Senator McCain has been accused of backtracking on his stance as well. Several years ago, he stressed that he would be open to the idea of repeal if U.S. military leadership approved it. But once several of the top officials started speaking out against the policy, McCain moved the goal posts. He wanted to wait for a Pentagon-commissioned study on the ban.
That study’s findings were reported last week. And the preliminary data showed that service members would have little to no problem with openly gay colleagues. Even then, however, McCain was not sold. The study was leaked, he stressed (arguing that he couldn’t be sure about its veracity) and it didn’t measure the right issues. And even if the right study was conducted, McCain went on, Congress would need time to examine and debate it.
“You and I have not seen that study,” he said of the leaked findings. “And this study was directed on how to implement the repeal not whether the repeal should take place or not.”
“A thorough and complete study of the effects, not how to implement a repeal, but the effects on morale and battle effectiveness, that’s what I want,” he added. “And once we get this study we need to have hearings, and we need to examine it, and we need to look at whether it is the kind of study that we wanted.”
