"We gather here to celebrate" are words I'm not sure you hear anywhere outside of a wedding. And perhaps outside of my late-eighties grade-school socials and your local easy-listening-and-R&B station, you don't hear Luther Vandross' classic "Here and Now" more often than you do when a married couple has their first dance at their wedding.
Matrimony, holy or otherwise, was this week's biggest news. President Obama took a historic new stance on marriage equality, becoming the first American President to state that he doesn't believe that marriage is just between a man and a woman. Whether you judge the decision as courageous, cynical, or catastrophic -- or don't care at all -- the President's now-completed "evolution" on the topic is incredibly newsworthy. As such, Melissa will lead an extensive conversation about it.
And yes, we'll cover the rather apocalyptic reaction to it by some folks on the Right (like Franklin Graham) -- pivoting to a conversation about how the continued religiosity and hard-Right stances that conservatives refuse to budge from are signaling, perhaps at just a deafening volume now, the end of moderation in politics. (For another signifier of that this week, we saw the career of Senator Richard Luger, considered a Republican moderate by some, end at the hands of a Tea Party challenger.) For that conversation, Melissa will talk to a man who has seen both sides of the aisle, and had Republican extremism cost him his seat -- former Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter.
We'll also have updates on this week's breakthrough in HIV drug research, the resurgence of the Occupy movement, and Melissa's tribute to an "author of splendid nightmares" who we lost this week. Our guests will include:
- Lizz Winstead, political satirist, co-creator of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," and author of the newly-released "Lizz Free or Die."
- Jonathan Capehart, opinion writer for the Washington Post, and an MSNBC contributor.
- Joy-Ann Reid, managing editor of theGrio.com, and an MSNBC contributor.
- Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry and author of "Why Marriage Matters."
- Dr. Roy Gulick, chief of Infectious Diseases at New York Presbyterian Hospital, and professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College.
- Joe Watkins, former aide to President George H.W. Bush.
As always, folks -- be sure to interact with us during the show here in the comments of this post, on Facebook, and on Twitter, using the hashtag #nerdland. We look forward to having you join us at 10am ET!
Leave a Comment:
I think the point is that whatever happens through the government is a civil union. Any church can say I don't want to participate, but the government cannot deny a contract to persons based on sex. It's truly a human rights issue.
Yes, in a few sentences you exactly stated the case!
Melissa, I admire and respect you. I thoroughly enjoy your show. Your show genuinely helps me. I would like to encourage you to consider when speaking of "God" you avoid gender specific language. And, if you do want to use gender specific language then alternate between "She" and "He." Perhaps even explaining to your guest why you are doing so. Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created humankind in God's image, in the image of God they were created; male and female God created them." You have a daughter. You are a woman. You and your daughter are both created in the image of God. If we want the world to be different, we must recognize that religious belief packed with male-dominate imagery and language keeps us from experiencing a world in which male and female work together creating a just world where all God's children are death with equally. Thank you for your considering.
Why on earth would she refer to God as "she"? That is silly.
God is referred to in the Bible with masculine (note, masculine, not male) pronouns because that's what a strict translation from Hebrew calls for. Take it up the monks & friars from the Dark Ages.
Exactly. Stop talking about religion. The constitution requires equal treatment, and the states must honor the contracts of the other states. Marriage is a civil contract, thus the marriage license.
why does the Constitution require SSM or other states must recognize- there are very few absolutes in the Constitution (other that perhaps the presidential oath)- I believe SSM is ok- but should be a state by state decision- equal protection clause has never been interpreted to support a concept even close to SSM and in terms of full faith and credit- Supreme Court has created numerous exceptions to that rule- including a public policy rules- so if SSM is legal in NY but specifically rejected by the consitution in NC- likely no full faith and credit-
I have to wonder if Joe Watkins, and other fundamentalist buy-bull thumpers, agree with the biblical prescription to kill a woman that isn't a virgin when marrying, or killing of a child that is disrespectful to its parent, which are also found in Leviticus, or are these people "selective" in their "devout" beliefs (superstition).
Sorry, but I'm not buying the "I have gay friends, but god says, "No!" so gays don't deserve equal protection under the law, but I'm NOT homophobic." Bull crap.
These people seem incapable of the separation of church and state concept.
You never let the minister answer the question "How does a man marrying a man" hurt your marriage. Please let him answer.
Marriage equality is not about god it is about equal protection under the law. Whether or not the state as the entity that gives the legality to a marriage(the county or state that grants the license) can deny that contract to gay/lesbian citizens. You can not go to a church to dissolve a marriage you have to go to the state. You are denying a class of people the right to enter into that contract based on sexuality. And that is unconstitutional.
why is it unconsitutional? Supreme Court may take the CA case- although that was decided or more narrow grounds that the full equal protection clause- so not likely any time soon will the Supreme Court take up this issue- and even if it does- how is denial of SSM a denial of equal protection- States traditionally regulate marriage and other areas based on "unequal" rules- for example state x permits marriage but says you have to the 16 or older to get married- taking "equal" literally that rule would deny equal to protection to a ten year old- in my view States should decide the issue which is what President Obama indicated- but to suggest this is a full own constitutional issue- is simply not supported by any past precedent-
Religions certainly contribute to form an important moral's frame into civil societies, but camping on religious positions (or current interpretation) to deny a civil right to a portion nof the population doesn't make us any better than Talibans in Afghanistan.
"Religions certainly contribute to form an important moral's frame..."
No they do not; unless you consider burnings at the stake, flying airliners into tall buildings and killing homosexuals as contributing to moral values. There is nothing concerning moral decency in the three Abrahamic novels that requires an imaginary invisible super-daddy in the sky.
Religion is a disgusting barbaric destructive superstition. Here we are in the 21st century fighting for the right of homosexuals to be treated as fully human and at the same time ignoring the fact that the hatred has been propagated over the centuries by an insane belief in a second-tier sub-god from a Late Bronze Age myth and his equally fabricated dieing-and-rising mood god scapegoated son.
Marriage equality is a made-up phrase and what's more, it's a state issue, NOT a federal one. This is a distraction from ACTUAL Federal issues that President Obama is completely ineffective on.
Marriage Equality, High School Bullying, what's next week?
well said
I find it interesting that the President touted he considered his daughters' relationships with students of gay parents. I would just ask why they didn't have sway with him before he canceled the successful DC school voucher program that helped so many children get a great education.
My concern with this subject is still sets up inequality with those of relationship types. Further, there is no way to prevent a confrontation between exercising Freedom of Religion and the Equal Protection clause. Churches will be left to defend themselves against charges of discrimination for following their teachings.
I agree that LGBT(I) couples deserve protection for their loved ones. Those protections can be provided without altering the definition of marriage.
Find the section of the Constitution (it's actually a small document, folks) that addresses "marriage equality".
The constitution is not a document that says what rights the government gives the people. It's says what rights the people give the government.
There is no section because the constitution is not a document that spells out every right that we have. If it's not there, we have a right to it.
well not exactly- consitution provides a "right" to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, right to trial etc- and then see the 9th amendment
My point is that the question that should be asked regarding the constitution is not "where is SSM" but rather "what power does the constitution give the government to prohibit SSM"
good question- the Constitution is not prohibitive document- it does not contain laws (we do not live a civil law country)- in general all government power not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states- the states create marriage- they can regulate- I have no objection SSM- jus believe the states should decide- this is not a judicial/constitutional issue. States for example set age limits for marriage, they prohibit polygamy etc - all limitations/restrictions on marriage. If they can do that they can prohibit SSM. Let the voters decided
There is, I think, and interesting question that arises from Article 4 when a legally married same-sex couple moves from one state (where it is legal) to another state where it isn't.
The reality is that the legal state of marriage confers a large number of rights, benefits, and privileges that could theoretically be denied based on the difference in state laws.
Does the same-sex couple have a legal case based on Article 4 to force the state where SSM is not legal to provide the same rights, benefits, and privileges?
I don't know the answer, but I suspect they might depending on the particular circumstances.
It is Article IV Section 1- generally referred to as the full faith and credit provision- at some point the Supreme Court will likely have to deal with this issue in the context of SSM. The concept of full faith and credit is not absolute and the S. Ct. has recognized various exceptions to full faith and credit. But at this point has not deal with SSM.
Yep, we gather to celebrate. We always celebrate that which is just and kind.
But today we're celebrating at our own funeral. One again, Lucy is there with the football just before an election, and we have kicked at it.
THIS HAS SOLVED ROMNEY'S BIGGEST PROBLEM, and probably cost us the White House, and likely the already vulnerable Senate seats in Ohio and Virginia and Montana and Iowa.
Romney's biggest problem is that fundamentalists and social conservatives have no
enthusiasm for him. This will revolutionize their outlook entirely - they may have detested Obama beforethis, but now they will feel deeply threatened and fully energized to get behind Romney in a way they were not before.
These are not not people who are merely bigots, remember - they really believe in a God who will unleash hurricanes upon Florida because of a Gay Pride parade.
America is coming around - but not enough are quite there yet. And to many of the ones who aren't, this is an existential threat to themselves and the the very survivability of the world they understand.
Yes, this is an important issue. Those who support the president's remarks
(which I do personally) are nevertheless foolish to celebrate - not their content,
but their timing. Karl Rove could not have hoped for better.
Just once, I wish we would keep this out of election years - it so very reliably tanks any hope of democratic victories at the polls whenever it gets planted in election narratives.
We may have gotten a presidential affirmation of personal views about marriage equality - but the Romney presidency and Republicanmtriumph which will result translates to untold suffering on the part of thepoor, of children, of victims of war, the ill and the elderly. Not to mention one giant leap towards the serfdom of the American population.
So, temper those celebrations - this comes at horrific cost.
Yes, it's true. I'm certain Obama's action this week made God cry. Haven't you ever cried in joy and happiness when you see or hear about someone supporting God's clear declaration that all actions MUST first pass the most supremely important criteria, which is Love; Love of God and one another. President Obama did what was required by his oath to uphold the constitution, not some religious view. The constitution guarantees ALL Americans freedom FROM religion and equal protection under the law, ie equality, and as President, it was Obama's job to uphold the constitutional rights of all people regardless of the sexual orientation God gave them. The GOP seems to think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, another woman, and in the case of their former speaker, yet another woman. That's clearly NOT what the Bible teaches, but they can overlook that.
Melissa, thank you for pointing out that Christ came not only to redeem us, but to clarify that man made laws supposedly from God, are not always correct. They're interpreted by men, who are human, not written by God, except for the ten commandments, which includes commandment 9 which the GOP ignores. They lie about so much it's hard to believe anything they say. Watkins said he believes in following Christ's commandments, but Christ clearly directed His disciples in no uncertain terms to "Go out and heal the sick," not once, but numerous times. You know Christ warned us about false prophets, and today they're everywhere. Satan, son of Mammon, is very clever in training his followers to portray themselves as Christians to deceive followers about the true Word of God. Unlike Paul, the church today is very remiss in not unmasking these false prophets. How can you tell is someone calling themselves a Christian is really a follower of Satan? If they campaign on the idea of repealing Christ's directive to heal the sick, they're not followers of Christ! ObamaCare isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction and needs to be improved, not repealed. Most people who don't like it don't know much about it because their view has been tainted by the Republican lies. They have the mantra that if you keep telling a lie often enough, people will believe it's true, and it's worked for too long. It's time for Americans to wake up, pay attention, and vote out those who repudiate Christ's message of love and healing.
Melissa you have renewed my excitement about weekends. I have your shows to look forward to on Saturday and Sunday's morning. Thank you Thank you Thank you.
I commend the President for his courage and compassion for those Americans which face such hatred in our society. If civil unions cannot provide the equality before the law, then marriage of Gays must be respected. Religious right need not accept it, but the state should not and cannot discriminate of equal protection before the law. Religion is divisive, requires an “enemy” whether it is earthly like the struggle for equality for Gays or in another mythical dimensions. All religions are based on myth, misogyny, fear and guilt, they just have different holidays! Voltaire stated, “Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities!” Religions strike at the heart of human nature, repressing and distorting human sexuality in a manner that causes tremendous psychological and emotional harm; that is what North Carolina has done, in the name of a mythical god! Lev 20:10, 13, 27 - You must kill adulterers, homosexuals, wizards and spirit mediums. Is this a loving and compassionate god? Of course not, besides this god does not exist, never has existed and never will exist except in the minds of those of Faith; faith in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god for which there is absolutely no verifiable evidence, blind trust of belief without evidence! Science has taken us to the moon; religion has flown us into buildings! Why do Americans hate so much?
This is constitutional civil rights issue...Are gay Americans citizens or are they not? Are they semi-persons, as blacks once were under our laws? Are women "real" whole citizens or are they, too, semi-persons? This is couched as "religion"...it actually has to do with social control by the very rich who are financing the anti-American extremist right. It comes down to money and how much of our nation/government can be bought outright.
This is a very crucial time for the USA...I urge every registered Democrat to vote...we need every one of us this time.
mark
When you say "compromise", you mean everyone caving to your social views. Might I suggest you consult your dictionary.
Marriage - that is, marriage between one man and one woman - has been the fundamental building-block relationship of all human civilization. It's purpose being the perpetuation of the species.
If same sex couples seek benefits awarded to married couples, we can achieve this quite easily without awarding the "marriage" label. I have no objection to awarding same sex couples the same benefits, but calling their union a marriage, simply isn't going to happen. It's just a word, let conservative folks keep it. Invent your own word if you'd like. How about "Garriage"? a combination of gay & marriage.
"Marriage - that is, marriage between one man and one woman - has been the fundamental building-block relationship of all human civilization."
Actually that is a false statement. For a much greater length of time it has been one man and many women. Ask Myth Romney's Great Grandparents.
So everyone who believes gay marriage is wrong - for whatever reason- is a bigot? That's a nice outlook. "If you don't agree with me, you're scum!"
You LOVE to point out that there's a razor thin alleged majority in favor of whatever poll you're citing, but I love how you carefully refuse to acknowledge the fact that despite whatever your little poll says, 41 states have instituted constitutional gay marriage BANS via referendum...soon to be 45 states in November. Even super left of center California voted to bad gay marriage!
As for Obama's brave, courageous, brave, wonderful, heroic, did I mention brave? statement on gay marriage... he said "I think states should decide this." Very, very brave. Well, Mr. President, they have decided... and they've all said NO. His statement changed precisely nothing. If anything, he's all but banned gay marriage but delegating it to the states.
Jerry- In some states if you put interracial marriage up for a vote it would fail in 2012.
The states should never have the right to vote on a whole group of people's civil rights.
This is a wedge issue that get's the rights base excited, mean while most young people think it's stupid even having this discussion!
How are loving couples being married going to affect anyone Else's marriage?
My husband and I have been married for 30 years, we believe this is about civil rights! No more and no less!
How would it play if someone made a comment of this kind: "I am not a racist, it's just that I love and obey God, and my religion states that those with dark skin are not worthy of equality in marriage, public accommodation, employment, and in other basic human rights. But if you accuse me of bigotry I will be offended and accuse you of hating my religion, or perhaps all religion."
That would never be acceptable. The person making that comment would be called on the carpet as a transparent racist hiding behind their interpretation of their religion. They would probably never appear on the show again.
"If you don't agree with me, you're scum!"
Come on Jerry, don't try to pull an O'Reilly on us. Disagreeing with me does not make you scum. On the other hand, treating gay people like second class humans based on a barbaric Bronze Age superstition = well, perhaps ...
Earlier on your show you asked for a song to describe candidates. So strange everytime I hear Mitt Romney speak a 60s song pops into my head. Im Your Puppet by James and Bobby Purify. Seems to be written for Mitt and Super Pacs.
Hello everyone,
I am a Christian and I do believe homosexuality is a sin and a stronghold just as any other. I also believe just I will have to give an account for what I have done in life, so will everyone including the homosexual. So whether or not homosexuals get married, really doesn't matter to me as it is just as wrong then fornication and shacking up.
However, what I do have a problem with is the homosexual way of life being forced on me and others who have no one to shield them. I could care less who someone sleeps with but I do care if I am told children from families that cannot afford to go to private schools must be subjected to teaching that explains homosexual sex and the life styles. I also have a problem with people wanting to gallivant down the street groping and feeling on each other displaying perverted behaviors and being told my tax dollars will pay for that and it is a freedom of expression. These are the things I have a problem with.
The fact is, morality cannot be legislated. However, we must have a civil society in which licentious behavior is not championed and paid for by tax dollars. If children cannot be taught creationism, how and why are they being subjected to homosexuality? If we teach one, we must also teach the other. So the "authority" figure in the eyes of the child on education presents them with both sides of the story so they can in fact choose what to believe.
I found Joe Watkins non stop preaching very disturbing, I was listening from another room, and had to go look who was preaching, and not doing a good job of it.
We are all Gods children Joe, and were all created equal right? So to use the excuse of Christians if they love God, and believe in his word, we must what hate and judge, and not give a group of people equal rights? I hope you listen to yourself on the show, and remember all the text in the bible that talk about stoning people, treating their daughters as chattel etc.
Other wise a good show, and I do enjoy your show very much!
Apparently the Christian Church not only allowed but had specific services for gay marriage in the middle ages -
A helpful reference for your guest that seemed to think his view of the bible was the only correct view.
A suggestion for future guests who cite the (Christian) Bible as support for their rejection of same-sex marriage: ask them about the relationship of David and Jonathan (Samuel).
The relationship between David and Jonathan was that of very close friends. To get from the Scripture that homosexuality was involved is quite the stretch.
To suggest that David and Jonathan's relationship hints at any homosexuality is quite the stretch.
It reads that way to me.
David mourns: "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women."
I found that President Obama's statement served as two folds. One was to include the LGBT community into our society and embrace them for they are different, by no fault of their own. They live on this planet with us and,always have been a part of our society,as well as they should be included. When we ask people to stand up & fight in the Military and die for us. We as a country should be so greatful we have a varity of human beings amoung us. Seond, in NC this was the wrong time to have marriage equality as a right to be voted on. It's like telling (white people) we as a country need to vote in the rights of all white people. In the past, there were groups who, inslaved us, killed asians and locked some up in a prison camps, latinos coming to earn decent living, muslins, and the russians which is a growing population of people here in the USA. The East Indians, from India, and many others. To me at this time in my life, I see America as it is suppose to be. Different colors of people from everywhere,living on this planet together as a whole people. All of us, having the freedom to come and go as we please. Where we going? From one city to another without question. The equality vote is a set up to divide and conquor. I don't think their plan is going to work. But to divide black people from Obama is unfair. To cause these types of indiffernces among people is exactly what the republicans live for. Thats all I have to say about that. Thank you for reading.
I was very disappointed in today's discussion. Chris Hayes always approches with reason and critical thinking. Melissa's discussion today failed this criteria. All four panelists plus Melissa essentially discussed whether gay marriage was approved by a god or the Bible.
There should have at least been one panelist that understood critical thinking. As a now reborn freethinker but onetime evangelical fundamentalist I think before one decides if gay marriage meets Biblical and the Christian/Muslim/Jewish god's acceptable criertia (it doesn't), one must have evidence that there is a god and that the Bible which is a library of early writings first compiled by the Council of Nicea in 325-7 CE is in fact the inspired word of that god (there is no evidence of either.)
Without evidence for a god or that the Bible is "the word" of a god there was no need to go further in the panel discussion this morning.
This is such a ridiculous debate (is gayness A sin?) at this late date, when all rational people have accepted that gay is not a choice but we are born this way. God or Spirit, which, as a panentheist & Buddhist, IS all things utterly as well as transcends all things utterly in paradox, obviously "wanted" variety, which GLBT people are born with, blendings of masculine and feminine qualities, that one doesn't find that often in heterosexuals. "God" (Evolution, Spirit) made homosexuals just as perfectly as he/she/it/Emptiness made heterosexuals, and to take
Iron Age prejudices written by men in old texts as truth is irrational religion not rational and trans-rational (mystical Spirituality, which is unconditional love. The point is, for the millionth time, to "fundies" (of any religion): it's NOT A CHOICE; it's INBORN, like blue eyes. Of course we deserve equal rights!
Hi, Melissa, regarding today's show on marriage equality (Saturday, May 12). I've enjoyed your new show very much in general, but stopped watching today after trying to make my way through a couple of different segments online. I really don't need to hear what a Bush administration hack has to say about what he finds in "his" Bible about homosexuality. Believe me, I've heard enough of those sorts of views my whole life. I really wanted to hear what Jonathan Capehart and Evan Wolfson and others had to say, but the Bush hack kept pushing his homophobia into the discussion. I'm not interested in listening to a conservative hack brought onto the show for "balance" or "contrast." What such a hack often does is hinder or stop the conversation.