Not only did Al Franken not resign yesterday, it is my prediction that he will never resign. He will not resign until Roy Moore does – and since there is no way Roy Moore is going to do that, there’s no way Al Franken is going to do that either. All Franken said what he would do is resign “in the coming weeks.” That is a gloriously indefinite time frame. Franken can cram as much of the future into that phrase as he wants.
Immediately after Franken mentioned his resignation at some unknown, unspecified point in the future, he spoke of the “irony” that a president who has a “history…of sexual assault” sits serenely in the Oval Office while Roy Moore, a man who has “repeatedly preyed on young girls,” is still on the ballot in Alabama.
We likely won’t hear from Franken again until December 13, the day after the results of the Alabama Senate race are known. What we will hear from Franken that day will be something like this: “I have offered, in good faith, to tender my resignation as a member of the United States Senate. Roy Moore, as a serial sexual predator, must do the same. In fact, I propose, as a gesture of nobility on my part, that Mr. Moore and I depart the Senate together. I will be happy to resign the same day Roy Moore does. Until then, I ain’t going anywhere.”
Well lets hop that this is the first thing this hatemonger ever says actually comes true.
The move was led by Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, who first declared his intention to initiate the impeachment process following Trump’s controversial “both sides” remarks in response to deadly violence at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Cohen is joined in his efforts by five colleagues, including fellow Judiciary Committee Democrat Luis Gutiérrez of Illinois, who announced his decision to join the push two weeks ago. Also at the press conference were Representatives Adriano Espaillat of New York and Al Green of Texas. The latter is one of the president’s loudest critics, and he has previously filed his own articles of impeachment.
Five articles of impeachment will be introduced, alleging obstruction of justice, violations of both the foreign and domestic emoluments clause, undermining the federal judiciary and undermining the freedom of the press.
While some will say it’s too soon to do this and they should wait until after Mueller’s investigation, the Democrats will need time and do live trials of impeachment language.
It’s a worthy exercise even if it doesn’t go anywhere this time.
Last night’s Vice Presidential debate between Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia and Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana was sloppy, obnoxious, contentious mess, and probably the most childish Vice Presidential debate in American history. What was supposed to be the nice-guy tête-à-tête was instead a snippy, tit-for-tat exchange. In the key of conventional politics Mr. Pence’s most controversial moment as a national figure — and the biggest stumble of his political career — came after he signed a law in Indiana that critics had warned would allow businesses to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Facing an enormous backlash, Mr. Pence first defended the law and then walked it back. The episode seemed likely to tarnish him as a national figure in a lasting way.
But neither Tim Kaine nor the debate moderator, Elaine Quijano of CBS News who lacked the strength to control the two over-grown prep schoolboys raised the issue Tuesday night. The lone mention of gay rights came when Mr. Kaine noted that Mr. Putin “persecutes L.G.B.T. folks and journalists”.
That is all. The only mention. That in itself was deplorable, insulting, and a major disappointment.
Quijano, did ask about bias among our police force against African-Americans, for confronting Pence about how exactly his boss plans to deport millions of people. But to not ask Pence about his level of responsibility for a culture of hate against LGBT people is itself irresponsible. To instead ask Pence about how his faith plays a role in his governing only adds to the insult. And because of this Pence now appears likely to escape the 2016 election without any extensive airing of this formative anti-gay moment in his career doing not only a disservice to the LGBT America but to all voting Americans as well.
Since Mr. Kaine and Elaine Quijano seemed to ”overlook” Pence’s extreme views on homosexuality, here’s a rundown:
*In 2015, Pence signed a law that would allow business owners to legally turn away LGBT people on the basis of their “religious freedom”
*He opposed federal funding for low-income people suffering from HIV/AIDS…
*Unless funding was also “directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.” In other words, Pence advocated for conversion therapy.
*He campaigned against adding LGBT protections to hate crime laws
*He said “homosexuality is incompatible with military service“
*Naturally, he’s against same-sex marriage—he tried to block it once it was legalized in his state of Indiana
“Societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family,” Pence said in 2006.
But to be fair Kaine has never been a die-hard LGBT advocate politician.
Kaine came out in favor of marriage equality in 2013, just two weeks after his would-be boss announced her support. Up until then, when it came to marriage equality, Kaine was a cross between a pretzel and a waffle.
It began in 2001, when Kaine expressed his support for “civil benefits” for gay couples, something he made clear was not marriage or civil unions. When Massachusetts legalized same-sex weddings in 2003, Kaine issued a statement that went further than necessary in distancing himself from the court ruling.
“Marriage between a man and a woman is the building block of the family and a keystone of our civil society,” Kaine, who was lieutenant governor at the time, declared. It has been so for centuries in societies around the world. I cannot agree with a court decision suddenly declaring that marriage must now be redefined to include unions between people of the same gender.”
The real test came in 2006, when Kaine was governor. By veto-proof margins, the legislature passed a bill to put an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot. Kaine opposed the measure, saying it went too far in forbidding civil unions, but he signed it nonetheless.
Fast forward to 2012, while running for his Senate seat. Kaine proclaimed himself in favor of “relationship equality.” Did that mean marriage? Well, not exactly.
Last night Rachel Maddow sat down with Hillary Clinton and during her interview asked Hillary about both the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell two anti-gay bills that her husband then President Bill Clinton signed into law despite running on a “pro-LGBT platform his first term. two issues which have taken over “a decade of progressive activism to unwind.” And have harmed hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian lives.
Asks Maddow in the clip below:
“Whether it was ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ or the Defense of Marriage Act or the – you know, tough on crime (ph) mandatory sentences. Former President Clinton is progressive on all those issues now… but the policies that he signed – for politically practical reasons – in the ’90s have taken – you know, the political miracle of Barack Obama’s election and a decade of progressive activism to unwind those things to get back to zero. …And so I know that you and President Clinton are different people, and I know that you’re not responsible for what he did as president. But is your approach to civil rights issues the same as his, or is it different? “
“Well, I want to say a word about the issues you mentioned, because my take on it is slightly different. On Defense of Marriage, I think what my husband believed – and there was certainly evidence to support it – is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that. And there wasn’t any rational argument – because I was in on some of those discussions, on both ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and on DOMA, where both the president, his advisers and occasionally I would – you know, chime in and talk about, ‘you can’t be serious. You can’t be serious.’ But they were. And so, in a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further.
“It was a defensive action. The culture rapidly changed so that now what was totally anathema to political forces – they have ceded. They no longer are fighting, except on a local level and a rear-guard action. And with the U.S. Supreme Court decision, it’s settled. ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is something that – you know, Bill promised during the ‘92 campaign to let gays serve openly in the military. And it’s what he intended to do.”
I call total Bill-shit. The only “defensive move” was that to get Bill re-elected for a second term which he then blew. Or at least Monica did.
This excuse has been 10 years in the making with the help of former Clinton staffer and current Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin.
I wish Rachel would have asked her about Bill using his signing of both the anti-gay laws in his re-election campaign. And all the lives both DADT and DOMA harmed and the millions upon millions of tears, dollars and man-hours spent trying to undo them..
I will admit it. just don’t 100% trust Hillary Clinton. But unfortunately I am probably going to have to vote for her using the “lesser of two evils” voting strategy.
I tell you know though. If Hillary Clinton comes back and bites us in the ass if elected. You will see an “I told you so” of biblical proportions.
LGBT Weekly publisher Stampp Corbin is being accused of filing a fraudulent recall notice in an effort to keep in office San Diego’s embattled Mayor Bob Filner, who faces allegations of sexual harrasment. The case against Filner has been brewing since mid-July, when a former member of his administration, Donna Frye, told a news conference there were serious accusations that Filner mistreated women. Since then six other women have stepped forward accusing Filner of sexual harrasment.
Corbin, who has a history of strong support and close involvement with Filner, surprised the San Diego political world on Thursday, July 25, when he was the first to initiate a recall notice against Filner via a classified ad in the UT San Diego. But many say its a political ploy to actually keep Filner in office. By triggering the recall process Corbin appears to be taking time away from organizers to mount a proper campaign. And it calls into question whether another recall effort led by land-use consultant Michael Pallamary, who has given Filner until yesterday, July 29, to resign or face a recall petition, can now go forward.
Further complicating matters, Corbin has announced that he will not mount a funded campaign with paid campaign staff to collect signatures, and instead will simply make a copy of the petition available to anyone who stops by his office at LGBT Weekly.
Observers say the biggest risk is that Corbin could walk into the City Clerk’s Office any day with a few signatures, and get the petition rejected automatically. Such a rejection by the City would guarantee six extra months in office for Filner, as city rules prohibit filing of recall petitions against a city official if a petition has failed within the past six months.
According to one longtime Republican political activist who is friends with Corbin , she said they has spoken several times last week and she is convinced that Corbin is playing “Chicago-style politics.”
“He bragged to me that it would be a way to stop the group getting ready to file” their own recall drive, Jester told the UT San Diego. “He said, ‘It occurred to me that it would derail the other group.’”
Corbin has denied the accusations but told 10News San Diego that he did indeed make the statements but was not being serious..
“When you’re two leaders and on opposite sides of the issue and you’re friends, you often make jokes,” said Corbin. “You often make jokes and be inappropriate because it’s fun!”
Michael Pallamary who also wants to mount a recall petition against Filner has given Corbin 24 hours to drop his campaign or he would file a complaint with the District Attorney’s Office, charging him with violations of the state elections code.
While Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been playing “victim” all week and spinning the release of an audio recording from a Feb. 2 meeting between him and his aides debating the use of smear tactics against actress Ashley Judd’s mental health, views on religion and attitudes about family while she was debating a Kentucky Senate run now the tables have tuned and McConnell and his staff may very well be investigated over the incident.
McConnell can be heard on the recording telling his campaign aides they are in “the Whac-A-Mole period of the campaign,” saying to hit anybody who sticks their head up.
One aide can be heard describing Judd as “clearly … emotionally unbalanced.” with the aide leading the strategy meeting stating that Judd “views [traditional Christianity] as sort of a vestige of patriarchy” and said she is “anti-sort-of-traditional American family.”
Senate ethics rules forbid legislative assistants and other Senate employees from participating in political activities on government time.
The FBI is currently investigating how the tape of the McConnell was made. But in the past few days it has come to light that two men Curtis Morrison and Shawn Reilly from the small progressive Democratic PAC Progress Kentucky recorded and leaked the taped. But more shockingly is that they and were exposed by Jacob Conway, a Democratic county official who says that the duo told him about the recording shortly after they made it. Said Conway “I’m an honest person,” Conway said. “If you’re going to ask me an honest question, I’m going to give you an honest answer.”
What Conway did not say is that the current Kentucky Democratic party looks at Morrison and Reilly as annoyances. Said veteran in-state Democratic strategist Jimmy Cauley. “They’re pretty much out there on the fringe of anything I know of as the Kentucky Democratic organization.” , which it turns out is very easy in a state where most of the Democrats are just as conservative as their Republican opponents. Recently the Democrat-controlled House, voted 82-7 to pass House Bill 279, dubbed the Religious Freedom Bill, that allows Kentucky organizations and individuals carte blanche to ignore anti-LGBT discrimination laws and statutes that they perceive as violations of their religious rights.
Said Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director believes that the FBI should expand its probe. “McConnell should welcome a review of the tape,” she says. “If McConnell thought it was so important for the FBI to investigate, the FBI should investigate everything about the incident. I think that’s hard to argue against. The tape certainly gives you probable cause to believe something improper occurred. It clearly merits investigation.”
A spokesman for Judd gave the following statement to Us Weekly:
“This is yet another example of the politics of personal destruction that embody Mitch McConnell and are pervasive in Washington, D.C. We expected nothing less from Mitch McConnell and his camp than to take a personal struggle such as depression, which many Americans cope with on a daily basis, and turn it into a laughing matter. Every day it becomes clearer how much we need change in Washington from this kind of rhetoric and actions.”
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) stated publically today that while she personally supports same-sex marriage she won’t in the Senate until the voters of her state also evolve, so she won’t be be backing the issue with her Senate vote if a repeal of DOMA comes up for vote
Translation:I won’t do whats right because I might be voted out of office.
Landrieu told CNN National Political Correspondent Jim Acosta in an interview Friday that she personally believes “people should love who they love and marry who they want to marry,” but that her obligation rests with the people of Louisiana who elected her. “My state has a very strong constitutional amendment not only against gay marriage but against gay partnerships. So I’m looking at the people of Louisiana trying to represent their interests,” she said.
Landrieu might as well just said “I’m perfectly willing to vote against your civil rights as long as I get to keep my job.”
Who needs spineless Democratic politicians?
The DNC really needs to clean its own house and replace hacks like Landrieu with stronger Democratic candidates who can do whats right and still win elections.
1. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) backs civil unions but not gay marriage.
“In the past, Senator Casey has supported civil unions and he is closely following the debate around DOMA. He intends to thoroughly review any legislation on this when it comes before the Senate,” said Casey’s spokesman John Rizzo.
Asked if the senator supports the repeal of DOMA, Rizzo simply repeated that Casey will review any legislation that comes before the Senate.
2. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) continues to back DOMA, in addition to opposing same-sex marriage.
“Senator Manchin believes that a marriage is a union between one man and one woman. His beliefs are guided by his faith, and he supports the Defense of Marriage Act,” said Manchin spokeswoman Katie Longo.
3. Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) has not publicly come out in support of marriage equality, although she did oppose North Carolina’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In a statement last year, she said it would have “far-reaching negative consequences for our families, our children and our communities.” In 2008, Q-Notes also reported that Hagan said she believed the issue should be left up to the states to decide.
4. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
“Sen. Nelson strongly supports civil rights for same-sex couples, while believing marriage should be between a man and a woman,” Nelson spokesman Ryan Brown said in a statement. “The issue will likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court before the end of the year.”
5. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) supported allowing states to decide what to do about marriage but did not take a position beyond that.
“Senator Heitkamp believes this should be handled on a state-by-state basis,” said Heitkamp’s communications director, Whitney Phillips.
6. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) has mostly shied away from discussing gay marriage in public, offering only her support for people’s right to “love who they love.”
“I feel very strongly that people should be allowed to love who they love, but unfortunately my state has a very strong ban against gay marriage constitutionally, so I’m going to have to think really carefully and listen to the voters of my state about that issue,” Landrieu said. “But it’s very tough because I think most people believe that people should love who they love.”
The Louisiana senator, who is up for reelection in 2014, voted against an amendment in 2006 that would place a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage, even though at the time she defined marriage as “a sacred union between one man and one woman.”
7. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) opposes DOMA and co-signed an amicus brief last much that urged the Supreme Court to invalidate Section 3 of that law. But the senator has yet to endorse same-sex marriage as a legal right.
“Sen. Carper was proud to support Delaware’s efforts to enact Civil Union legislation and earlier this month he joined 211 of his Congressional colleagues in co-signing the Amicus brief that urges the Supreme Court to invalidate Section 3 of DOMA,” his office said in a statement. “He has also said that he would vote to repeal DOMA. He also opposed President Bush’s attempt to enact a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Like many Americans including Presidents Obama and Clinton, Sen. Carper’s views on this issue have evolved, and continue to evolve. He continues to give this issue a great deal of consideration.”
8. Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) does not support same-sex marriage.
“He has not changed his position on marriage equality,” Johnson’s office said. Asked if that meant he does support the right of a gay couple to marry, the office replied: “No.”
10. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) does not support same-sex marriage.
“Senator Pryor’s position on same-sex marriage has not changed,” said his spokeswoman, Lucy Speed. Was that opposed to gay marriage? “Yes,” she replied.
Considering that same-sex marriage support is an official plank of the Democratic Party each of those l;listed above should be chastised by the DNC and NOT ONE THEM should get one red cent for re-election campaigns from the Democratic national Committee.
The Illinois House Executive Committee late Thursday tonight advanced SB-10, or the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, passed by the Senate last week, in a 6-5 vote. Tuesday’s vote was split along party lines. GOP lawmakers opposed the measure despite its endorsement by state Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady
Sponsoring Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, said the bill is needed “because we need to treat all Illinois families equally under the law” but the status of people in civil unions is often misunderstood and has created a seperate and unequal status.
Kellie Fiedorek, an official with the anti-gay group Alliance Defending Freedom, argued against the bill. She said it failed to protect the religious freedoms of all Illinoisans because it “advances religious intolerance and discrimination towards Illinois citizens with sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Under the measure, marriage in Illinois would be allowed between two people rather than only a man and a woman. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has vowed to sign the legislation, a move that would make Illinois the 10th state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage. The Senate passed the legislation with only one Republican vote on Valentine’s Day.
Less than 24 hours after saying in his Inaugural Address that “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.” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney yesterday stated that President Obama believes that same-sex marriage is a “states issue” and not Federal and that the White House would not actively move to oppose Proposition 8, which sits before the Supreme Court:
NBC News’ Kristen Welker was first to ask whether the remarks — which suggested a national call to support marriage equality — represent a shift in Obama’s way of thinking from his previous position that marriage should be left to the states and not handled at the federal level.
“The President’s position on this has been clear in terms of his personal views.”
“He believes that individuals who love each other should not be barred from marriage. He talks about this not about religious sacraments, but civil marriage. And that continues to inform his beliefs. We have taken position on various efforts to restrict the rights of Americans, which he generally thinks is a bad idea.”
Carney also indicated that Obama’s believes Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional based on the belief that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in marriage.
“One the reasons why we believe that Section 3 of DOMA is not constitutional is because we should not addressing it in that way,” Carney said and then moved on to the issue of Prop 8.
“Well, as you know, the administration is not party to that case and I have nothing more for you on that. We have, as you, know through the Department of Justice taken an active role in DOMA cases, which is why I can tell you the things I told you about that. But on this Section 8 case, we’re not involved.
“After such a stirring speech by the President during Monday’s inaugural ceremony, it was disappointing to hear Jay Carney go back to the same old ‘states rights’ argument that has plagued civil rights movements of the past. As we move closer to a Supreme Court decision on marriage equality, we hope that the President again ‘evolves’ on his view of LGBT relationships.”
For me personally I find the White House’s and thereby the President’s answer on this question is profoundly bigoted and homophobic and I wish that people would begin to see that.
If the issue was about inter-faith or inter-racial marriage would the President and the White House say the same thing? Of course not. And this shouldn’t be about the President’s “personal views” it should be about whats right according to the Constitution of the United States.
We need to face facts and turn our back on the hyperbole. Obama is all talk, and the only time he takes action, takes an actual step forward, is because we’re having to take out his knees with a crowbar. We had to push hard to get DADT done. So hard in fact that GetEQUAL had to lead a protest of Lesbian and Gay vets and supporters to chain themselves to the White House while Obama dragged his feet. And in actuality all of his “accomplishments” for the LGBT community have been “work arounds” of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) while not really attacking it.
Far too many organizations in the LGBT community are empowering the oppression against us by failing to hold our leader, the Democratic Party and our “friends” accountable. and this has got to stop.
Hopefully all those people and professionals in the LGBT equality business akaGay Inc. (HRC, GLAAD, The Task Force). who were gushing over Obama and a shout-out to Stonewall on Monday just got a reality check. As I’ve repeatedly said, Obama has suckered the lot of you. All he had to do was whisper “sweet nothings” in your ears and you laid down and let him walk all over you and actually do nothing for equality. Empty words. All talk and no action for equality.
The U.S. Constitution protects these rights of the people from infringement by the states. And as long as DOMA stands on the books, same-sex marriage is indeed a Federal Issue.