Skip to main content

tv   Liberally Stephanie Miller  Current  June 26, 2013 6:00am-9:01am PDT

6:00 am
[ ♪ theme ♪ ] >> hal: here we are talking about social media right away. you know the great thing about having jacki in studio as i'm filling in for steph while she's on vacation in week is that i'm learning all kinds of things including the fact that apparently facebook still exists and there are still people who use it. [ laughter ] is that true? >> you're a little bit of a social media snob. >> that's the whole point. >> nobody else uses it, then it is really not social. it is anti-social.
6:01 am
>> but there is a point exclusivity. i want to interact with people who are interested in what they're doing as opposed to this auto forwarding of this is a picture of my family and your mom and grandmother. like a fan page, not even her own personal page. grandma, when i'm talking to you, i do put you on fan page? which one do you check more? that being said, here's jacki schechner with real news. >> now i'm embarrassed. all right. good morning everybody. we do expect the supreme court to rule today on same-sex marriage. but we'll have to see just how open-minded the high court is willing to be. the first case concerns the defense of marriage act which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples even if they live in a state where they're legally married. if scotus decides doma is unconstitutional, it may do so not as a violation of gay couples civil rights but as an infringement on state's rights. the second case has to do with prop 8 here in california which
6:02 am
bans same-sex marriage. the hill reporting the court has five options when it comes to prop 8. the first two are straightforward. it can uphold the ban or refuse to rule on procedural grounds. they ways the court can strike down the ban. one, it can say it is unconstitutional which would then make same-sex marriage legal nationwide. two, it can say california has afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples with the exception of including the word "marriage" itself which makes the ban null and void and extends rights to about eight other states. finally, it could strike down prop eight in a way that only affects california sending a message the court is for marriage equality but states should have a right to decide for themselves. >> huge kudos to texas state senator wendy davis for last night's fill bust they're stopped a restrictive abortion bill from passing before the midnight deadline. she spoke for 13 hours. she could not lean or take a bathroom break. she was the last possible line
6:03 am
of defense to stop this bill and she pulled it off! so big kudos to wendy davis today. we're back after the break. (vo) this afternoon, current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. >> if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld.
6:04 am
>> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv.
6:05 am
6:06 am
♪ it's a beautiful day ♪ ♪ don't let it get get away ♪ >> i'm in love and i don't care who knows it. >> hal: well you might in about 70 minutes. it's "the stephanie miller show." i'll hal sparks filling in all week as steph and the mooks are on vacation. thank you for tuning in once again. 1-800-steph-12 is our number. in the sidecar, jacki schechner. i would not define you as a mook. i think that's a limiting view of what you do and the importance of your existence. we'll see if we can turn your
6:07 am
mic on or in. there you go. >> look at that. i hope it was on for all of the news. it was okay. good morning. >> wakey wakey. >> i didn't get much sleep. >> he was up running sound for the texas legislature. he was shutting women's mics off. whole point down there. [ laughter ] >> hal: for those of you that did not follow the draconian anti-abortion bill that the texas legislature was trying to push through in a special session that rick perry called simply to do anti-abortion bill, failed miserably last night as wendy davis, the soon to be governor of texas, if a boy dares to dream filibustered for ten hours. it was actually close to 11 hours. they cut off her filibuster. with about an hour and a half left and then there was a series
6:08 am
of you know, parliamentary inquiries and what not and they had one state senator or state legislator who was actually going to take over the filibuster, start his own to continue it on throughout the entire process ended up crossing the midnight line where they were not able to vote on the bill itself. therefore, ending the special session, therefore nullifying the vote, the republicans were arguing and the a.p. reported that the republicans had actually successfully passed the bill. that was not the case. luckily, the bill fell at 12:03 a.m., this morning, which is outside the legislative session and failed. they are arguing that it is a short-lived victory because they will do this again. i don't know -- because rick perry is going to call another special session so they can do this again. >> good thing there's nothing more pressing in texas. >> they've got all of the jobs they can stand. >> everybody's covered in healthcare. >> it is good.
6:09 am
education is right on track. >> hal: one of the finest education systems in the world there. if you don't care -- >> about education. >> hal: about facts or any of that. which they don't seem to do which brings me to the president's climate speech yesterday. ignored, flat-out just directly ignored by cable news yesterday. the weather channel ran it. ran all 49 minutes of it. >> with analysis, i heard. >> hal: cnn ran eight minutes and five seconds of it. fox ran four minutes and 37 seconds of it. msnbc, 41 seconds of it. the network that is supposedly in the lapdogs of the obama administration, progressive equal of fox news ran 41 seconds of the president's big climate speech yesterday. an amazing speech, by the way. an incredible step forward by this president. >> i think the fate of paula
6:10 am
deen and the food network warranted the time that they gave it in consideration. >> the irony that we're discussing, you know, whether or not this woman can give an apology and go right back to work while the supreme court is gutting the civil rights act essentially, the voting rights act specifically by pretending that the paula deens of the world aren't running industry and government in sections of this country which is an absurdity. >> of course i've used that word. of course. >> hal: i have said openly that as a stand-up comedian and someone who is a fan of both lennie bruce richard pryor eddie murphy, george carlin, i have absolutely used that word in context of quoting those guys over the course of my life from the time i was 10 years old. the difference is do you use it in a derogatory sense to describe a person you view as a lesser? and that's the problem
6:11 am
ultimately with paula deen. you know. carlin's argument was there's nothing wrong with the word in and of itself. it is just a word. that's what kind of bill maher was saying although i think he was missing the point. in this context -- >> it was used in a derogatory fashion in this context. >> she tries to make up for it, you know in that "new york times," you know, that clip that you can watch online of her talking about how johnson, this guy who works for her is as black as this board behind me. >> i have a black friend. i have a black friend. >> hal: she says come up here. we can't see with you that black background behind you. and she does. it is absurd. she says i love this man. i would walk to hell with this man. of course to drop him off. i don't know where the walk to hell part came in. that was shocking. she holds his hand, trying to prove she loves him. it had this plantation/dog feel to it. you know how when people talk about their dogs and they go i
6:12 am
love my dogs but their dog is a little too sick for a little too long, they'll put it to sleep. there is a limit. >> there is a financial limit to the love. >> hal: steph and i go back and forth about this when people call their dogs their children. that worries me because if you think you can raise a child by leaving a dish of food and going out for 80s hours -- for eight hours, that worries me. >> i believe you love them but i think it has a limit that doesn't equate with live children. >> are you a pet own summer. >> of course. i have a lizard, currently. my girlfriend has a dog and two cats. and one of them paws at her ipad to see me when it's not on. pictures of it waiting for me to come on. >> the cat? >> yeah, it is adorable. i love them. i would spend far too much money to keep them alive. but the issue becomes it is not the same. it just isn't. there is this element where she's holding this guy's hand
6:13 am
where you're just like -- >> it is awkward. >> i don't buy it. i think you view him as a pet honestly. it looks like that. it looks like somebody going i love him so much. i just love him so much. his eyes are starting to go and his back's going so we're going to have to put him down like it wreaks of that. and she was on there today. i guess on "the today show," she finally showed up and she's saying i wouldn't fire me if i was me. of course you wouldn't! you share the same brain with the fictional you that wouldn't fire you. what the hell are you talking about? >> while that's happening and while we're having this argument about can you recover from this level of racism, should she be -- is it okay that somebody is like that if she's -- physically not harming black people like is there a different level of racism. while the supreme court is bringing down this clearly legal
6:14 am
east way of -- legalese way of kneecapping the act -- >> we were having this conversation on the walk in this morning. there is some conversation to be had about perhaps the parameters to define what requires federal intervention before you make changes to your election process in any given state. understood. but if you leave it up to congress to do that and we know we have the most ineffectual congress we've ever had -- >> hal: i would not call them ineffectual. i think the effect they're going for is stonewalling. i think they're effective at their goal. >> we'll say the least productive. >> hal: again, i think they would argue. >> i ain't getting nothing from them. what do you call it? >> hal: the obstructionist. >> most obstructionist congress. >> hal: of our time. of the last 100 years, no question. >> the thought that they're
6:15 am
going to get on this before the 2014 election starts is not necessarily a valid explanation. >> hal: my argument is and has been that the strategy on the republican side has been to create havoc to undermine women's rights, minority rights and gay rights on the state and county level and then put people in the republican party in the house to stonewall any federal remedy against such a thing. >> yeah, that seems like -- >> hal: that's the whole point. the only remedy you have is to go to the federal government and these guys will stand between the federal government and you stopping that. if you want to rewrite your books on history and biology to include, you know, jesus makes the grass grow and creationism and those kind of things and you want that put on par with every other scientific theory and taught in equation format. they will do that. on a state house the federal government out of our education
6:16 am
system. they'll get on that right away then the only option you would have is to take it up the chain. well, they've already loaded the ninth circuit with nut cases. as best they can or eliminated the ability for the obama administration to fill those -- fill the vacancies that would even it out. then if it does make it up to the supreme court they've got alito and scalia and thomas to guarantee at least a padded front against anything and they can -- and we're talking about law. law, you can pinhole your way against almost anything. it is the world of semantic difference. >> all you have to do is take a look at the last election to take a look at the modernization of the poll tax. >> hal: don't give them voting machines. >> strip down the voting machines, cut down the early voting days. >> hal: hence the part where i agree with the assessment that section four is not up to date. >> right. i do agree though with some of the people who come out going fine, leave it in place until
6:17 am
you come up with a remedy and give them a deadline for the remedy. it has to happen before the next election cycle. it must be put in place or this fails or whatever. now, we all know the republican -- >> was that a legal option? >> no. >> hal: it should have been. because to strip it away without a remedy is foolish. i believe. >> could they have done that though? >> of course. you could have given them a deadline for the next election. within three months of the next election, you have to have a new set of standards that marks this. now, again, a lot of the states we've been having problems with in the last few election cycles namely ohio and the like -- >> florida. >> hal: absolutely. aren't covered in the voting rights act. not the states that were part of the dangerous dozen or so that were in this. so they were skipping it anyways. a lot of the republican mechanic has been -- we have to take a break, the republican mechanic has been to go for those states since they couldn't get around what was going on in the votes
6:18 am
right act in texas louisiana atlanta. south carolina. north carolina. so those are always problematic. so what do you do? you go and you go after montana and ohio and that's what's been happening. west virginia, those states. >> any state with a large minority population that can be disenfranchised. >> hal: we'll take your calls. 1-800-steph-12 is the number. i'll ham sparks filling in for steph and the mooks. this is a big day. the doma ruling and the prop 8 ruling will come down today within the next 65 minutes. very exciting. but we're going to be taking your calls 1-800-steph-12 about the voting rights amendment act rather. and the climate change speech. it's important. >> what's all that noise? >> announcer: it's "the stephanie miller show."
6:19 am
6:20 am
6:21 am
6:22 am
current tv is the place for true stories. with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines. real, gripping, current. documentaries... on current tv.
6:23 am
>> i can assure you, i mean you no harm. >> hal: welcome back to the show. i'm hal sparks filling in. the delta tones. you're sorely missed. we're of course talking about the ramifications of the supreme court rulings that have come down the activist judge -- you know john roberts and samuel alito who are if anybody is a trojan horse set to do -- set to build a conservative world
6:24 am
through judicial rulings, it is those two guys. you can tell by the way that -- alito keeps getting crap for making faces. you know. apparently when ruth bader ginsburg was reading her dissent yesterday, he was making faces during the entire thing according to dana milbank. he was rolling his eyes and shaking his head. same one who went -- when the president was talking about citizens united, he goes -- not true. he was making that no and shaking his head. remember during the state of the union, yeah. by the way, just for the record, all turned out to be true. everything the president said in the context of that where alito was saying that's not what happens. that's not what's going to happen. that's not what the ramifications of the law are. those were exactly the ramifications of the law. under every empirical system, that's exactly what happened. so he's known for -- you know, it is funny. by the way roberts, many
6:25 am
believe, is -- was specifically put on the court to suppress minority votes. that his goal, he was not a fan of the vra, when he was back under reagan, he was a legal adviseert to reagan administration and may have been directly -- the lawyer at one point, i'll have to look it up. but during the period, he was known for not being a fan of the voting rights act. and was whispering in the ear of reagan during that entire time. that was his role as a legal adviser. he was also -- his job was when the administration had -- legal advisers do, when the administration has an idea or a policy they want to put into motion their legal team figures out a way to make it happen. if you don't believe me, see bush years and come back. that being said, you have to understand the context of what was happening during the reagan administration.
6:26 am
the reagan administration was when the heritage foundation really got on its two feet with the free congress foundation got kicked into high gear. there was a guy named paul wyrick. if you listen to the lovely and talented thom hartmann he will often play this clip of paul wyrick. it is particularly germane to the conversation considering the ruling yesterday. you have to understand that the ruling that the states that are fighting minority right to vote is part of a 30-year plan to strategically undermine the ability of minority and in many ways, poor people to vote. this idea that when you hear constitution, when you hear somebody go i believe in the constitution of the founding document and what the founding fathers had to mind, i believe what they wanted to do. included in that must be the thought they mean women can't vote. only white male land owners can vote. they mean that indians and black
6:27 am
people are 3/5 of a person. because that's in the documents and if they believe that it should be held strong to that original meaning then that's what they mean. so in 1980, right before i guess the beginning of the founding of the heritage foundation which is one of the most highly financed you know, conservative think tanks in the country and by the way, their offices in the building, same building, thom hartmann does his radio show out of. shane from -- that helps on thom's show and does, you know, he's -- they did the left broadcast, he will be on later on as soon as the rulings come down because he's actually at the supreme court. >> you got an inside. >> hal: an inside person who will call us from there. how do you like that? real news. listen to wyrick. this is them speaking their mind. this is the paula deen of their
6:28 am
voting concepts. they are basically saying what they want to accomplish over the next be three years. then remember that roberts was working with the reagan administration during this guy which was completely in line with the reagan administration and then 25 years later, they were pushing these -- they started pushing voter i.d. laws and limiting voterring machines and making sure that poor, black neighborhoods got one machine and white neighborhoods had 20. and then remember the words of this guy. this is paul wyrick. >> how many our christians have what i call the goo goo syndrome? good government? they want everybody to vote. i don't want everybody to vote. elections are not won by a majority of people they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. as a matter of fact, our leverage in the election goes up
6:29 am
as the voting populous goes down. >> using the whole first doc? >> he didn't say that. he said that. >> hal: this is the plan. you have to remember there is strategy involved here. as much as it is impossible for a lot of progressives to believe that the president actually has a long game and he's working toward things, it is almost right in there they also don't believe the right has been working on these schemes for quite a long time. >> they have to be because they can't win over minority voters with their policies. and they don't want to, frankly. >> hal: no. they don't actually believe they should be voting in the first place. >> right. >> hal: you have to understand there is -- the '60s were not that long ago. i was born in them. but yes tony, you good? oh yes. i'm good. signaling. i'm good. >> it is like a bad game of hua charades. bigger than a bread box. we'll be back right after this with your calls. 1-800-steph-12.
6:30 am
>> he's turning red. honest. they know that i'm not bsing them for some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the i'm going to be the first one to call them out. cenk on air>> what's unacceptable is how washington continues to screw the middle class over. cenk off air i don't want the middle class taking the brunt of the spending cuts and all the different programs that wind up hurting the middle class. cenk on air you got to go to the local level, the state level and we have to fight hard to make sure they can't buy our politics anymore. cenk off air and they can question if i'm right about that. but i think the audience gets that, i actually mean it. cenk on air 3 trillion dollars in spending cuts! narrator uniquely progressive and always topical the worlds largest online news show is on current tv. cenk off air and i think the audience gets, "this guys to best of his abilities is trying to look out for us." only on current tv!
6:31 am
6:32 am
6:33 am
6:34 am
[ ♪ rock n' roll ♪ ] >> hal: i'm listening! ba-da-boom. >> hal: welcome back to the show. we're going to take your calls 1-800-steph-12 is our number. between paula deen and the voting rights act happening in the same day i think is there a conversation about race that this country needs to have once again. i have no illusions we'll get past this any time soon.
6:35 am
i have relatives in the south. i've had conversations with people that i'm related to where i've been shocked by what they actually believe. >> when a member of congress screams at the president "you lie," there is a general air of disrespect for the office of the presidency that we've never seen before now. you gotta go with maybe race has something to do with it. >> hal: they don't believe he deserves to be there. >> because he doesn't look like them. >> hal: it is like you're sitting in the president's seat. it is not that they're yelling you lie at the president. you're yelling at the black guy who is in his seat. slate wrote an article called paula deen is america's racist grandma. yes, she's a racist but she's also your grandma. i got news for you neither of mine grandmothers were racists or would use the "n" word. >> you know what though? i don't know if it is the "n" word necessarily but there are words that -- i don't feel comfortable saying my parents but my parent's generation uses
6:36 am
that are uncomfortable for me. and i've had to say -- can we find another word. >> hal: yes. i've had a conversation -- >> it is not just african-american. it is asians or -- >> hal: orientals. >> that's what comes up. the oriental lady. >> hal: this is -- >> it is worse than that at times. >> hal: i've had more than one conversation with people in my parent's generation who are seemingly very nice people but at the same time, will sit and legitimately heard the phrase well, it has been proven scientifically that black people's brains just aren't as functional as white people's brains and you're sitting there and your jaw hits the floor and you're like and where does this scientific -- the study come from? well, it's common knowledge. just give me one then. well, i'm not sure if i could find one. it has been around for a long time. from where?
6:37 am
was it gerbels or goring that came out with this idea that there were certain races that had smaller brains because that's where it comes from. for these folks the '50s was their '20s or '30s. they went through three decades of formative years, the '30s, the '40s, the '50s where this was generalized belief. i don't believe that lets them off the hook for waking up to the fact that they were taught stuff that was ridiculous because we all have to, over the course of our lives evolve. you don't go -- well, i just -- once i hit 30, anything i believe, i get to believe until i'm 90 now. it is absurd. that's the standard we're holding for paula deen and her ilk. >> i understand the explanation. i don't condone it. i understand it. >> hal: we have a bunch of calls on the line about this and the voting rights act. let's go to sue in wisconsin about paula.
6:38 am
hi sue. >> caller: hi. you know, i woke up this morning and i watched cnn and then morning joe and then i listen to you on this station about paula deen. i don't condone the use of the n word okay. i don't believe in that. but i want to ask you guys this. all of you commentators that are out there. i saw a black lady commentator saying that only -- that black people can use the "n" word for themselves like a term of endearment but no other race than use that and that's okay. and i hear time and time again in this society people looking at someone that isn't a beautiful person and calling them ugly. it happens all the time on the radio. i also hear people calling women the equivalent of being a female dog. and i hear people calling --
6:39 am
using the word for an illegitimate child. that's all okay in this society okay? paula deen said what she said, according to that deposition, 20 years ago. people are jumping on this to tear apart her life because she said that. while you have commentators that are saying the "n" word is okay between black people. >> hal: it is. i'll go into a certain -- >> caller: yes, it is. >> hal: so your argument is that you should be able to use the word freely because black people use it. >> caller: nobody should be using it. that's my argument. >> hal: from the point of view of people like richard pryor and eddie murphy and other people, including lenny bruce made the case that the word was so poisonous for so long that there was a thought form that if we use it amongst ourselves we'll take some of the power away. and that was the choice -- wait a minute. that was the linguistic choice to do that.
6:40 am
but it is a specifically racial term. every other word that you brought up can be used across race completely. would you not agree? is it difficult -- >> caller: no. >> hal: well, and if you want to use a similar -- what i'm saying -- >> caller: it is discriminating. >> hal: there can be ugly black people and ugly white people. there can be women described as bitches that are black and white. there are people who are fat what have you all of the derogatory terms we have for people's character or physical appearance that are across racial divides. would you not agree? >> caller: i would not -- no. because what i'm talking about is not the racial part of this. it is the discriminating part of it. there's a difference. >> hal: i agree. >> caller: it is discriminating. it is improper for anybody to be using this. and if you think that the word
6:41 am
that they used for the chinese people, there is no indignation out there anywhere about anybody saying that. it is only because -- >> yes there is. >> hal: wait a minute. there's plenty of indignation about other racial slurs. >> caller: not on this station. >> what? >> hal: what are you talking about? >> caller: i listen to you every morning. i'm telling you. i listen to you guys all the time. >> we have never used a racial slur on this show. >> hal: there's no way. >> caller: i hear you guys. you guys don't hear it -- don't use it. but it's out there. >> hal: wait a minute, i don't use it but it's out there. that's a ridiculous argument. i'm sorry. i tried. >> we're not a racially-charged program, sorry. i think she misdialed. >> hal: i think what you want to call is -- >> she's a small business owner. >> hal: rush limbaugh is on in the afternoon. you can call his show.
6:42 am
he's comfortable with that language. marcy in florida. >> caller: hi, how are you? >> hal: good. >> caller: i have, you know, kind of what this lady touched on before. i think she completely misses the point of it. i live in florida and i feel i always have to apologize for that. i'm from upstate new york from where stephanie is from. i've lived here for 30 years. i was very upset -- i wasn't surprised over the court ruling yesterday. i was scared to death it was going to happen. and of course, i live down here in florida. a few things i have -- there is a publix i go to and when employees park, there are two trucks that have the huge rebel flags on them. i'm like what -- i understand people are entitled to their opinions and stuff but this flag has such a dark part of our history and they lost. when do you get to keep your flag when you lose? >> northern florida? >> caller: i'm in the tampa
6:43 am
area. >> okay. >> hal: not far. >> and i asked this one guy i said why do you have that flag? he said it was fought over great battles. >> i said so was a swastika but why would you have that? it lost in the war. you don't get to keep your flag. how do you think an african-american or black people feel when you drive by with that flag? >> hal: i think he knows. that's part -- >> caller: he knows. that's the problem in the south. if you don't look like them, if you don't go to the same church as they do it is just -- they just -- we're still fighting. they're fighting the war down here and it is disgusting. >> hal: a lot of them refer to it as the war of northern aggression. north carolina state senator who referred to it as that. >> they go well, it was about state's rights. i go yeah, jackass, to have
6:44 am
slaves. here's another thing. i went to fort sumter. i love history and everything. i went to fort sumter and so they have a museum in the fort. and so i'm like looking around and looking at all of the stuff on lee. all lee. there was not one thing of grant in there. i said -- just to make them crazy, i said do you have anything on grant and they all just looked at me. >> hal: you know, that's what the reenactments are about. let's pretend we won. >> caller: they were always saying lee was a better general than grant. i said i don't know what to tell you. grant was on the right side of the surrender table. >> hal: exactly. >> caller: it is scary down here. it really is. these people, i had a guy who came and did my kitchen and he started talking to me in -- this is two years ago trayvon martin's thing had just started. i had the news on. he said i suppose -- he goes what do you think about the
6:45 am
shooting? i said i think it's horrible. he said to me, i'm not even paraphrasing, he said well, he was black and he had a hoody on. i said that's right mark, everybody knows you shoot somebody with a hoody. it is scary. it is absolutely -- they're constantly trying to justify the civil war down here and it is just like, you know, you're not even smart enough to figure out the civil war. if you were working for landowners, they didn't want you to have a freakin' plantation. if they won, they would have slaves and you people would be out of work. >> hal: i appreciate the call, marcy. we have to take a break. it is interesting because the supreme court even mitch mcconnell saying yesterday that you know, it is a very different country than it was in the '60s. absolutely. no dogs being sicked on people. it is much more insidious. the minute they could, they would. there is a vigilance that's necessary because there are people in office today who were
6:46 am
in office at the time that the civil rights act was actually being litigated. they're still mad about the it. they're still against it. will work as hard as they can to undo it until their dying day or at least until ten days before they i don't like strom thurmond and apologize when a lot of good it did us because you spent your whole life doing that and i'm supposed to be okay with it where you had five days at the end where i'm bad. it doesn't work. we'll be right back with more of your calls 1-800-steph-12. >> it's not radio. it's "the stephanie miller show."
6:47 am
6:48 am
6:49 am
(vo) an eleven story building just came down on your head. can you make it out the front door?
6:50 am
you know who is coming on to me now? you know the kind of guys that do reverse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?
6:51 am
[ ♪ rock n' roll ♪ ] >> see a doctor and get rid of it. >> hal: welcome back to the show. this is -- of course, ace of spades by motor head. >> of course. >> hal: this is -- occasionally -- >> if you don't know this stuff, you're not all that. >> hal: we'll let jacki play a song so she played that one. [ laughter ] this is the interesting -- let's go go to myron in selma since this is the area where the actual case was brought against -- brought to the supreme court. hi myron. >> caller: hi. >> hal: go ahead. >> caller: my thing is on -- i
6:52 am
do not agree with what they're doing and if they were going to reinform it, they should have left it in place. >> hal: i think we're losing you because of your signal there. i'm sorry myron. i agree with that point that a lot of people were bringing up. they should have left in place this and given them a deadline for the next election cycle. inside of leaving it completely gutted, until then, which is texas and all of the other states are now going we're going to push ahead with our plans already that were viewed by a federal court as being discriminatory specifically and like i said, in line with the wire thing. let's go to richard in illinois. hi richard. >> caller: good morning. i take issue with the fact it is racist to disagree with this president on fundamentally transforming america. how is that not -- >> hal: where did i ever say
6:53 am
that disagreeing with the president was fundamentally racist? >> caller: the tone of this particular segment is what it sounds like. >> hal: why would that be the tone of this particular segment? at what point did i say anything you could construe as saying disagreeing with the president on policy is racist? >> caller: well, this whole situation with the supreme court's decision. >> hal: with the voting rights act. >> caller: racist to this segment. am i wrong? >> hal: we're dealing -- no, racial, i'll give you because we're dealing with a law that was meant to protect minorities from having their voting rights infringed upon. >> caller: 30 years ago 40 years ago? times change. isn't that the progressive mantra? >> hal: one would hope. we don't pretend it stopped raining and put your umbrella down just because you're not getting wet. that's a little absurd. >> caller: didn't obama win this election basically in a landslide?
6:54 am
those things are gone. >> you think that there's no racism anymore? >> hal: so the voting lines in a lot of southern states across this country specifically where black districts were getting one, two voting machines and white districts were getting ten and in a lot of cases the black districts were getting ones that broke down with no one to fix them, that's not a sign that things are still in balance to you. i'm being specific. >> caller: the democrats are winning elections across this nation and will be doing it for the next 20 or 30 years. there's no way anybody is hampering the democratic party from slaughtering the republicans in elections. >> hal: i will say because the law has been in place to make sure that they don't. that's what the voting rights act has been doing. now that it doesn't exist, do you think that's how it will be? do you think these laws -- in alabama, texas they've already started their redistricting.
6:55 am
they've literally redistricted like the single black state legislator that they had out of office by dividing the black district up into three others so that they were a vast majority in three other districts instead of having a single one where they had a representative, member be of government in the state legislature. that actually happened. then they went in. alabama specifically redistricted that area so that that black legislator, all their constituents were moved to three areas where there were minorities in the voting no matter what they were to do and now we're represented by a majority white area and not having the actual situation they lived in addressed. that was actually found to be illegal but under the voting rights act, when they redistricted back to actually you get to vote because it is in your neighborhood, you don't get a line drawn the middle of your neighborhood to split your vote. that's what the federal court found that they had done under the voting rights act specifically and then when they went back to how it was these
6:56 am
people voted in the person that they wanted to have voted in. >> caller: even in democratic states like illinois where i live, whatever the party is in power redistricts to make sure they stay in power. that's the american way. >> hal: i agree that redistricting is a very questionable practice on a lot of fronts but in terms of the history over the last 40 years specifically red states have a history of redistricting black people disenfranchising based on race specifically as opposed to just this is a poor area. this is a rich area. i'm going to try to get all of the rich people in my district so i can get more money out of them. >> caller: i know you're a white person. the woman speaking, is she african-american or what race? because i mean when it comes to wcpt which i listen to every day, starting from bill press all the way to the end of the day, every single commentator
6:57 am
every single program is run by a white person running the program. where are the african-americans talking on this program seriously? >> hal: on this show, i'm glad you did that because we've only got about a minute left in this hour. in the next hour, monti gandy a dear friend of mine on my saturday show on wcpt if you listen regularly she's a regular guest on there. we call her the angry black lady for a reason. she'll probably answer some of the questions you have about why we're not necessarily in a post-racial world and it is interesting you would bring up that we don't have enough black people on the air as an indicator that there is no racism. even on progressive stations, i suppose. is that the case? we'll be back after this with more of "the stephanie miller show." i'm hal sparks filling in while steph and the mooks are away on vacation. i will be at the ontario improv this weekend if you're in the l.a. area and you feel like driving out that direction or if
6:58 am
you're in the ontario area and you like using that airport. it is a good one, you know. it is a cheap flight to new york. it really is. out of ontario. i'll be there this sunday. the 30th. and then my band is playing in fresno. >> not to bury the lead, but i'm white. >> hal: that's true. i hadn't noticed until about now. my own racial purity, i think would be called under the carpet by our last caller if you got a good look at my family tree. i certainly walk around in white crowds unobstructed. but yeah, we'll be back right after this. more of "the stephanie miller show" and your calls at 1-800-steph-12. monti gandy, the angry black lady just for balance. we'll be right back.
6:59 am
7:00 am
[ ♪ theme ♪ ] >> hal: so here we are. hour two of the big day. i mean right now if we're -- i mean the paperwork should be hitting, you know, the desks right now for the prop 8 and doma rulings from the supreme court. people will be tearing through them. i'm sure we'll see immediate headlines but until then, we'll have legitimate news from the lovely and talented jacki schechner. >> thanks. i would advise that based on the affordable care act decision that we wait until people actually read these decisions before they come out and say what they are because everybody
7:01 am
is so quick to get it on the air first that they don't even bother to take a look and read through what it actually says. while we wait, we do now have a new democratic senator in massachusetts. representative ed markey. the republican gabrying gomez to replace john kerry in the senate. turnout was low. markey beat gomez which 10 points. he serves out the rest of kerry's term and faces re-election in 2014. president obama heading to africa today. the trip is going to focus on u.s. investment opportunities along with development issues like food security and health. and promoting democracy. china investing billions of dollars across the continent and has replaced the u.s. as africa's largest trading partner. president george w. bush meanwhile will be in africa this week as well. working on renovations of a cervical cancer treatment center in zambia. of the men are not scheduled to meet but michelle obama and laura bush both will attend a summit in tanzania on july 2nd. president obama starts his trip
7:02 am
tomorrow and friday in senegal then moves on to south africa over the weekend and then he will be in tanzania on monday and tuesday. he is not expected to visit with nelson mandela while in south africa. mandela, 94 and critically ill. protocol at this stage is to just give him room to try to recover quietly. and former congressman anthony weiner making a comeback in his run for new york city mayor. a new nbc 4 new york maris poll shows weiner ahead with 25% support from registered democrats. city councilwoman christine quinn is now at 20% and comptroller bill thompson gets 13%. everyone else is in single digits. last month quinn was up over weiner by five. the primary is september 10th but if no one wins at least 400% of the vote, the top two candidates go head to head in a runoff. the good news for quinn is if the two match up, she's still got the edge over weiner 44-42 with 14% still undecide.
7:03 am
weiner has the momentum on his side. last month, he was behind by 15. we'll see what happens. back after this. rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv. (vo) this afternoon, current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's
7:04 am
life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current.
7:05 am
7:06 am
♪ it's a beautiful day ♪ ♪ don't let it get away ♪ >> hal: it certainly is. here it is. 5-4 decision, doma is unconstitutional. the line first came down 5-4. kennedy being the deciding vote again. roberts dissented. scalia dissented under the equal protection concept. scalia is joined by thomas. not surprising at all. like i said, on a leash with a
7:07 am
ball gag in his mouth. showed up as a couple today. dissent against gay american. alito joined by thomas in part. doma is unconstitutional as a deprivation of equal liberty of persons that is protected by the fifth amendment. doma singles out a class of persons deemed by a state entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. the opinion its holdings are confined to lawful marriages which was a quote from the end of the. everybody is going to be tearing through this over the next hour figuring out you know, how far it goes. prop 8 they're going to -- >> gay people are now free to be as miserable as the rest of us. >> hal: that's been the case for -- by the way on the line right now with us, the angry black lady herself from this week in blackness. angry black lady on twitter. hi imannie. this week has been insane.
7:08 am
>> so boring. nothing is going on. >> hal: this is a huge step. this is a shock giant you know -- by the way the conservatives had a -- i guess a memo leak that said how they're going to defend against it. >> here's a nice little edition from pete williams at nbc. the plaintiff in the doma case, edie windsor will no longer have to pay the money. >> hal: that's what this is about. >> that's nice too. >> hal: retroactive. she filed the case because her partner died and they were treated as strangers. she couldn't file for partner benefits like you would if you were married. >> she owed a tremendous amount of property tax. >> hal: you know, the voting rights act yesterday section 4 going down which is the enforcement provision how it is broken down, the equation it is
7:09 am
used to decide. what was your feeling on that, imani and do you think there is a remedy? >> i think it is shameful. it is absolutely shameful. i think that the gentleman who was on the call just -- before you went to break is just a quick example of why people just don't get it. the notion that well, president obama won in a landslide so you know we're not racial now. it is ludicrous. i think justice ginsburg nailed it where she said you know, the quote she had about the rain. you don't put your umbrella down just because -- >> hal: in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet. >> exactly. the idea is okay, we have the voting rights act and the voting rights act amyreiateed the -- am he'll ameliorated the voting rights act. it is circular logic. the funny part is in shelby v.
7:10 am
holder, there was proven discrimination in the county so it is kind of like -- i mean, it is depressing. it really is depressing. >> hal: the irony of it, i find, they're saying president obama got elected so everything is fine. he got elected because the vra was there to protect the rights of voters. without it, i don't think he would have. and as a matter of fact -- >> precisely. precisely. hale think now that it's gone, i think the push to get rid of the vra came from the fact that oh, my god, we have a black guy in office. we have to dial this back. >> absolutely. you said, you know, what remedy there's going to be. the good thing is despite clarence thomas' dissent not withstanding, the court left it up to congress to refashion a preclearance rule and i think there needs to be national preclearance because, as we saw in the 2012 election, there were states that don't fall under the rubric of section four that were assigned to pass some of the
7:11 am
stringent voting laws. in pennsylvania, they were trying to make people go get voter i.d.s. the overwhelming number of black people who didn't have i.d.s would be able to get i.d.s in time. so this idea that we're post-racial now and everything is fine. we saw immediately texas they're immediately going to start redistricting and putting the voter rights laws into place. >> hal: absolutely. >> same with mississippi. just because there isn't a cross burning on your lawn doesn't mean we're post-racial. we don't have the poll taxes and the ridiculous question. those aren't there. there are other types of regulations but they're going to put into place that will make it very difficult for black people, people of color to vote. it is just -- >> hal: standard practice in the south that when you get
7:12 am
pulled over for a traffic viles in a lot of counties, that they take your driver's license. this is pretty standard fair in big swaths of the south. one of the reason you do that is so when you did need an i.d. to vote in these places before they outlawed it and now that they can put it into place, a month before an election, they can start pulling over every black person they see in these counties and start taking their driver's license going you were speeding. you can get this back after court. court doesn't happen for six weeks, that's after the election. you'll get it back but it will be too late for you to vote. so everybody's going to have to get both that and his -- you know both that and a state i.d. just to protect themselves from this. >> right. and you know, as ginsburg pointed out in her dissent something like 700 proposed changes to voting laws were
7:13 am
proposed between what 1980 something and 2006. 700. we're not post-racial. it is just that the actual voting rights act prevented the states from imposing these voting rights restrictions on mainly people of color and so now, i just -- it is mind boggling to me that people seem to think that just because we have a plaque president we have what? two senators that are black? >> hal: by the way those were both appointed i think. >> the gerrymandering and the redistricting and the voter's rights laws and it is just -- it is just depressing. i saw the picture of john lewis watching msnbc and it made me cry. it did because 1965, bloody sunday wasn't that long ago. they marched over pettis bridge in selma to get the right to vote. he's alive now. he's still here.
7:14 am
and he is still seeing the sorts of racism that are prevalent in the system and the idea that he had to watch as his legacy was torn down by these white guys who have decided that oh, you're fine now, black people. racism is dead. it is all good. don't worry about it. you've got your black president now go settle down and sit in the back. >> hal: i will go so far to say he's alive now and watching this kind of being -- there are people who are alive now who were also alive then who were on the other side of the issue who were in power and still are. >> absolutely. >> hal: they never changed their mind and never outgrew the racist reflex that they grew up with. nor will they because they don't believe they should or that it is wrong. and by the way we're talking to imani gandy on twitter at angry black lady. this week in blackness. >> i've got a lot of blackness going on.
7:15 am
>> hal: almost everywhere. >> she makes up for my whitens. >> i balance you out there. >> hal: that's why i had to have her on. that being said, we have a minute left before we need to take a break did you see the filibuster last night in texas? >> did i ever! i was literally -- wendy davis was the only thing keeping me from bursting into tears and/or running outside and setting cars on fire. watching that was just so unbelievable and that's what conservatives do. i don't understand how any people of color or women in this country feel the government is working for them. what they tried to do with the ridiculous warning and trying to make the vote at 12:03 after the session had ended trying to ram it down. they switched the date on when the vote happened. it was a subversion of gross subversion of democracy. and that's what we're going to start seeing. we're going to start seeing minorities and women becoming more disenfrannized as
7:16 am
conservatives try to control women's bodies and pretend that racism is dead and it is scary and wendy davis is a rock star! she's a true hero. you want to talk about heroes? edward snowden not so much. wendy davis absolutely. yes. it was very inspiring to see. especially because there's so many feminist activists in texas like jessica luther and andrea grimes who have been just grinding telling people texas is not a flyover state. you can't just say well, just get up and move. we can turn it. we can turn it blue. we can turn texas blue. >> hal: absolutely. that's unfortunately for them and fortunately for the rest of us that there is -- there is a trend they're going to have a hard time stopping. the more they act like this, the more they kind of out themselves as essentially proprietary racists. they decided a long time ago this is how it should be. they're going to stick with the
7:17 am
plan until they're gone. it is just an aging themselves out of a purposeful existence. only way they're going to shift because you can't talk sense into them unfortunately. >> absolutely. >> hal: thanks so much for calling in. i'm sure we'll have more to talk about over the next couple of days because some people will start floating a solution to the section four issue fairly quickly to try and get it in the chamber and through while people are still riled up about it. i think if it hits the congressional floor in the next month our so, there will be, you know, almost a texas legislature level of protest to push it through and try to get it through the house. >> let's hope so but congress is so dysfunctional, we'll see. >> hal: appreciate it. thank you so much. eye mani gandy the angry black lady herself. i'm hal sparks filling in. we'll take motor your calls at
7:18 am
1-800-steph-12. doma is down. we have a doma down. >> doma down. >> i'm in love, i'm in love and i don't care who knows it. >> as it turns out the revolution will not be televised. it's on the radio. it's "the stephanie miller show."
7:19 am
7:20 am
7:21 am
7:22 am
you've heard stephanie's views. >>no bs, authentic, the real thing. >>now, let's hear yours at the only online forum with a direct line to stephanie miller. >>the only thing that can save america now: current television. >>join the debate now. [ ♪ rock n' roll ♪ ] >> good morning! >> yeah, well, you know, it's just like your opinion man.
7:23 am
>> hal: there's -- >> if you weren't awake you are now. >> hal: you've gone wild, skid row. >> i know that song. >> hal: sing it with steel panther every so often in l.a. if you ever come down on a monday night and you're in california gotta go see it. >> can you pick a night i don't have to be asleep at ridiculous o'clock? >> hal: it is a -- the opinions are raining down. and we're all -- you know, flying by the seat of our pants keeping up with this -- as people are reading it. i'm on scotus blog and they're going through the breakdown of this. at the bottom of page 25, into 26, the federal statute is invalid for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in personhood and dignity. by seeking to displace this protection in treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others. the issue in the california case
7:24 am
in which it looks like they will also strike down prop 8 in the process is that it created two class of citizens. under the equal protection clause, that's not fair. and doma specifically makes sure that it does that. it enforces the idea that equal protection does not apply to a specific class of people no matter what a state has said. ironically enough, scalia's dissent, that he's been reading basically makes -- check this out. this is fun. scalia's reading from his dissent, the court's opinion both in explaining its jurisdiction and its decision, this is a quote both spring from the same diseased root and exalted notion of the role of this court in american democratic society. scalia is arguing that the court is viewing itself too highly in its value in the situation as opposed to a final remedy to people trying to seek equality under the constitution. >> are these the same people that argue that they don't want
7:25 am
activist judges who interpret the law and not take the constitution literally and then in this case, they're interpreting the constitution literally and complaining? >> hal: yes. except he is that guy. explaining about himself in the third person. he's like one of those athletes who goes, you know, antonin scalia is the kind of guy that antonin scalia wants to be and when antonin lays down the law he must allow -- >> page four of the roberts dissent talking about prop 8. we hold that we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the particular context. to be clear, the court has not yet released its decision on prop 8 but the language in windsor telegraphing the court will dismiss on standing. this is pulling out the way most people thought it would. >> what does dismiss on standing mean? >> hal: it doesn't hold water. the concept that it is based on isn't sound. >> not that it is going to kick it back down. it will rule prop 8.
7:26 am
a. >> hal: i suppose it could dismiss on standing that they shouldn't be seeing it. >> okay. >> hal: but the equal protection clause aspect of doma would -- would argue that it's unconstitutional what california is doing to its own citizens by defining two different people as two different classes. there are gay people married in this state who are still married, who got married during the window and did not have their marriages nullified by prop 8 and then there are people who want to get married who can't because of the date. that would seem to me to be an arbitrary use of the nullification. >> okay. >> hal: if you're talking in a legal sense. by the way for those of you just joining us, doma has been struck down as unconstitutional. because it creates two different groups of citizens. by the way we'll take your calls on this 1-800-steph-12. i would love to hear what your opinion is of it.
7:27 am
especially if you think this is somehow going to destroy your marriage if you're straight. that i've never understood. anybody who -- >> i think straight people do a perfectly good job of destroying their own marriages. >> now they're ruling on prop 8. >> here it comes. >> hal: it's coming through. this is curious. >> i'm seeing you can gay marry in california. so, let's see. >> hal: by the way they're reading. it is amazing how much -- during the deliberative process. >> prop 8, no standing per roberts, 5-4. >> hal: guess who the dissent was. >> let me guess. >> thomas, alito and -- oh, wait. no standings -- it was important the outcome the couple in the case was legally married under state law. the equal protection violation arose from congress disrepresenting the decision to allow new york to allow the
7:28 am
marriage. the decision of the ninth circuit is vacated and remanded. >> this is interesting. supreme court clears the way but avoiding rules on -- avoids ruling on gay marriage. >> hal: this is where we're getting into the tricky legalese of it. it basically undermines the law. you can create two class of people. this was always the problem with prop 8 is it tried to have its cake and ignore it, too. >> the prop 8 proponents don't have standing to bring suit to the lower court decision that struck it down stands. okay. i'll take. i'll take it. >> hal: it was simply -- you know that particular ruling is held. the plaintiffs, the people who brought it to the supreme court don't have standing. >> any of my gay friends want to get married and have a fabulous
7:29 am
wedding, i want to go. >> hal: i got ordained specifically so that i could actually perform weddings for gay couples. >> really? >> hal: it became legal and then illegal like that. >> now, we've got a side business. >> hal: we'll deal with this and your calls when we come back and voter's rights and gay rights. it is a tumultuous, roller coaster. >> you're going to do the wedding music, too? >> hal: i don't think it should be standardized in any way. gay marriages should be a new kind of fabulous. really. >> i'm thinking about your preference for hard rock and -- >> hal: hey, i would gladly -- if rob halford wants to get married, the lead singer of judas priest who is gay and out then i would gladly perform that wedding in a heart beat. it would be my honor to do so. we'll be right back after this. more of "the stephanie miller show" and no more doma.
7:30 am
>> yea! honest. they know that i'm not bsing them for some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know i'm going to be the first one to call them out. cenk on air>> what's unacceptable is how washington continues to screw the middle class over. cenk off air i don't want the middle class taking the brunt of the spending cuts and all the different programs that wind up hurting the middle class. cenk on air you got to go to the local level, the state level and we have to fight hard to make sure they can't buy our politics anymore. cenk off air and they can question if i'm right about that. but i think the audience gets that, i actually mean it. cenk on air 3 trillion dollars in spending cuts! narrator uniquely progressive and always topical the worlds largest online news show is on current tv. cenk off air and i think the audience gets, "this guys to best of his abilities is trying to look out for us." only on current tv!
7:31 am
7:32 am
7:33 am
you know who is coming on to me now? you know the kind of guys that do reverse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? (vo) this afternoon, current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current.
7:34 am
[ ♪ rock n' roll ♪ ] >> hal: welcome back. >> i can assure you i mean you no harm. >> hal: to "the stephanie miller show." of course, big news happening because steph is out of town! we thank stephanie for being out of town because i think it is -- it might have been the tipping point for doma being overturned. >> it happens every time she goes out of town. >> she had to go to colorado so it could be overturned.
7:35 am
>> hal: steph, i know you're watching. >> she might be hiking. >> hal: the voice you're hearing joining us right now is travis t-bone. he's normally -- if you call into the show, you'll know travis' voice because he will be -- he's the one going i'm sorry, die understand what you're talking about. slow down. thank you. stop screaming. stop screaming. and then just -- i need to be able to type this out. >> have you secretly called in on me? >> hal: i have! look here, if gay people get married -- >> oh! do road flare mary. [ laughter ] >> hal: no words, just coughing, best road flare mary impersonation. >> when do you get gay married? >> i don't know. >> hal: it is optional, not forced. >> i missed it. >> there's a lot of pressure now
7:36 am
>> welcome to my world! why aren't you married? >> hal: just so people get what's going on with prop 8 specifically -- >> still not mandatory. >> hal: they kicked it basically down to the ruling of the circuit court in california. >> right. they were talking about the standing where they're saying no standing and what that is. i used to be a reporter. the standing issue is that california the state court ruled it is unconstitutional. california said yep we agree. it is unconstitutional. we're not going to pursue this or go to the appeals court and try to get prop 8 reinstated. well, the people who put prop 8 on the ballot stepped in and said if california's not going to do it we're going to do it. and we're going to fight to uphold this because we're disenfranchised now. the court ruled no, it is still the law and it is unconstitutional. the problem that they ran into is at the supreme court level the supreme court decision is
7:37 am
that you don't have standing. you can't file a case because you're not the victim of anything. saying that gay marriage is going to inflict pain upon you or it is causing a problem for you. >> hal: or a segment of society. >> that's not true. they have no standing to bring that case before the supreme court and argue it. so it was kind of like a waste of their time to argue it before the supreme court. the court just took the case so they could say nope, you don't have any standing. >> hal: wouldn't it be impossible thing to prove even if you came at it from a victim's standpoint? i don't know how anybody can make a legal case they're the victim of gay marriage being made legal. >> now that michele bachmann and marcus bachmann, maybe she can prove she's a victim of gay marriage being legal. >> because now he has an option to marry a man. >> hal: if he does and that ruins their marriage, i still think that -- that's the worst-case scenario. >> i want to see her in court arguing that. that would be amazing. >> hal: that's the only way i can think of someone on that
7:38 am
side of the issue saying this broke up my marriage. until that was legal, we were behaving like good, straight christian people. >> and neither of us knew the other one was gay. >> hal: we didn't talk about it. now that we can talk about it, now that it's out in the open, he ran off and married somebody and i've been making batty eyes at this woman at my sorority and that's ruined our marriage. even still, that's the only way i can wrap my head around even in the fantasyland. >> it is icky and we don't want to talk about it. we don't have to explain this to our kids. >> hal: i don't want to educate my children to be bigoted against a section of society. by striking it down on that concept and saying you're not the direct victim of this so you can't bring suit, they make it impossible to bring suit against it. >> right. like you said, the state already said no, we agree. it is wrong. it should never have been in place. we're not going to support this
7:39 am
or try to defend it. we know it's not right. and it is happening in more and more place. >> hal: the obama administration said they're not going to defend doma. that was a direct result of what was going on here. they believe it much like the circuit court in california did with prop 8. the exact same action. it was just we don't think this is constitutional so we can't in good conscience and with -- as a use of government resources, go and defend something we don't think will actually stand or that has value. >> let's talk about how much the republican congress wasted because they're the ones who took up the mantle to doma. they spent millions hiring a private law firm. to defend this case. so when they talk about budgets and spending and money and where it's going that's where the tax dollars are going. >> hal: them and darrell issa trying to find a bottom to the i.r.s. scandal which, by the way, we didn't cover yesterday. but the progressives and left and liberal groups being targeted equally. even the word "israel" was a
7:40 am
word they should set aside for scrutiny. >> it is funny to watch himself twist himself into knots to see how he can justify it. >> hal: the brutal level of lying is incredible. i'm curious to see how this place out because this is -- same-sex marriage can resume in california officially today. it is now back -- by the way the court had said that in california. the court had already struck it down but until this ruling for the supreme court it couldn't go back into effect. so california arguably had gay american, lost gay marriage, just got gay marriage back. like said, if you want to contact me on twitter i will be glad to perform your gay marriage. it would be my honor to marry couples who want to be married. >> i just want to b invited. it would be cool. does this go into effect immediately?
7:41 am
>> hal: yeah. insofar as i know. the law was undone by the court and this just says the court was right to do that. that was months ago. >> i have nothing to wear! [ laughter ] >> hal: perfect outfit. >> t-shirts. >> we'll have matthew breen on in the next hour. he will be calling in to talk more about this and he can give details because they've been doing excellent coverage on this as well. >> hal: as have you. i thank you for stepping in. the phones are ringing off the hook so i'll send you back throughout to do that. but i want you more out here. >> i will be back, callers. >> we just want you out -- >> hal: in so many ways. as the one gay person in the room congratulations. >> doma went into effect right after i came out. that was the first message i got from the government. it was a slap in the face. >> hal: i was at the logo hot 100 party last night for the gets better project. it was to raise money and awareness for the gets better
7:42 am
project. i think that doma and prop 8 specifically were axed by those in the government to tell people you don't matter or you are less than and it is a legislative specific act. you do not, should not have the same rights as i do because of who you are and what you are. >> and who you love. >> that was the first message i got when i came out in '96 right after i came out. remember how much that really hit me. so today is like -- >> i'll bet you're not alone. that message -- >> hal: that day that day after, it is huge. >> this is a turning point. >> hal: we love you and we're proud of you. >> bikini bar is open. >> hal: we'll be take your calls about this, too. i would love to hear somebody who is very upset about this call in and explain to me how they're going to file a charge with a case at the supreme court as a victim of gay marriage somehow, i don't know how. but which is why this failed. ultimately why this failed was
7:43 am
because the people who brought the suit were not victims of it. i think it is nearly impossible for anyone to make the case they're the victim of gay marriage. that they are -- you know, i don't want to hear this -- people will marry their dogs, their cars, their children, it will make incest and polygamist incest -- you can have nine baby wives. >> it is a slippery slope. >> hal: it is a slippery slope because those folks never seem to understand the concept of consent. have you ever noticed that bigamiesing -- like you're going to marry your dog next. dogs can't give consent sorry. they don't speak the language and don't have the mental capacity to give consent. that's why you train them with newspapers. and snacks. >> not a lot of people out there wanting to marry their dogs. >> hal: it is a big fear in the santorum world. you know -- >> no rush. >> hal: we might have our first request. terrell in fresno, how are you?
7:44 am
are you there? do we have him? he might still be being vetted before that. hold him on there. nope. are you there terrell? or is this veronica? >> caller: this is veronica. >> hal: hi, veronica. she was calling about paula deen. we'll get to that. >> caller: okay. i kind of -- well, i kind of take a difference with this use in america of the "n" word. the "n" word, having been taught by that word and maybe i'm not as involved in this language in this country or education the "n" word is a statement of behavior. that could be either anyone white, black asian whatever. the "n" word is a statement. >> hal: not at all. i appreciate the -- >> caller: use of the word. as the word cracker okay.
7:45 am
cracker can be your mentor or your ideological. could be maybe rand paul that type of title. >> hal: rand paul is white and cracker is a white associated term. would you call al sharpton a cracker? would you call barack obama a cracker? ideologically? clarence thomas, a cracker? >> caller: when they were misbehaving as slaves in the boats or even against their masters. so it would be -- >> hal: no. specifically the word comes from negro. the word negro comes from black. it is a specifically racially oriented thing. in the black community if you look, listen to the bit about chris rock there is variant degrees of behavior within it and the same way you would say there are white rednecks and white crackers and then there are white people, i suppose or
7:46 am
something along those lines i can see where you would think that that would be a normalizing factor. the fact is though that when that word is used, by white people toward black people, the truth is the black people they're using it against are by and large denied certain rights privileges and protections that they themselves were not. and you know it is much like the idea that you can only in society, i believe, joke up or even with your station in life. >> i talk to many black people who are descend descendants of people who live off slave property. this is a word i've been told that this "n" word is not necessarily related -- i mean we can relate it to a race. >> hal: it is related to race. >> caller: we can go back to
7:47 am
when sotomayor was being voted in as a justice that the type of behavior the congress was putting out was very much the "n" word behavior. >> hal: no, not at all. >> caller: not necessarily a cracker. >> hal: i think that's a vast oversimplification. you're welcome to that thought but that's an absurdity honestly anybody who thinks they throw that word around and it could apply evenly to the races is living in a special form of denial. that's fairly obvious. let's see if we can get terrell in fresno. hi terrell. >> caller: hi, hal, how are you doing, man? nice to talk to you. i understand you're playing in fresno in weekend. i was going to ask you two things. where are you going to play and i was wondering if you could perform -- i'm a straight man. i was just -- i'm just throwing the suggestion out there. you could perform -- maybe you could perform your first gay
7:48 am
american in fresno. >> hal: that's entirely possible. i could do it in ontario when i'm doing stand-up as well. i'm willing to travel is the reality. there are a lot of areas -- my radio agent i'm lucky enough to actually have one. and he and his partner have been together forever. i don't know that they are technically married in the sense. they may have gone through the ceremony but they have three beautiful children through a surrogate mom with their own frozen stuff. and they have one kid the fin single because he was frozen for three years before he was made. they're a beautiful family. they're lovely people. and -- it would be my joy to, if i could actually help people reach that level. >> caller: fresno also does have a very large gay community. we have a huge -- gay parade, they have a huge gay parade here. it is called the tower district.
7:49 am
it would be it would be fantastic, the center of state. i thought i would call and suggest that. man, i love your show. >> hal: thank you. maybe we'll see you at the show in fresno. maybe that will be the case. let's take a break because we're way over and we'll come back with more of your calls at 1-800-steph-12. doma and ding-dong doma is dead. we'll see how this works out.
7:50 am
7:51 am
7:52 am
>> if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for
7:53 am
real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv. (vo) an eleven story building just came down on your head. can you make it out the front door?
7:54 am
>> you can tell so much about a person from the way they live. just looking around here, i can tell you're a genuinely dirty person. >> hal: welcome back to the show. i'm hal sparks filling in for steph and the mooks while they're away on vacation simply so that news can happen. that's the sound of doug penic and doug is out and gay and now would have the right my dear -- one of my dearest friends in the whole world, the idea that he would be able to have a lasting relationship which is something that is, you know, if you listen to music, then you know, a haunting for him his entire life is a beautiful thing. just a really good feeling that if he chose to do that, he would be allowed to do so. and the idea that he couldn't yesterday because a group of people felt an icky -- is amazing to me in a country that
7:55 am
prides itself on freedom. >> i don't think it is so difficult to find love in this world anyway. it is so difficult to find someone that you care that deeply for and want to be in that sort of committed relationship with that putting any limitation on it, legal or otherwise is a big ole waste. i think is really nice to be able to turn around now and to be able to say love who you love and it is nobody else's business. there are so many straight couples out there who made such a mockery of the institution of marriage that why not let people who love each other get marriage. >> the term institution has creeped me out. we can get married or we can join the y. >> well, they do have some good fitness classes sometimes. >> hal: true. this is -- you know, by the way lots of callers on the line. let's grab a couple of them that have to do with the paula deen story line. next hour, we'll talk about the legality of prop 8 because some of the folks have been holding on for quite some time. greg in ohio.
7:56 am
>> caller: hal, how are you doing? >> hal: i'm good. >> caller: i just had a simple question. can actually become complicated. is it racist to say that one race can't say another word because of their race? >> hal: well, no. actually, we're not talking -- legality, you're not talking about the legal -- >> caller: i'm not talking legally. i'm talking morally. morally, for me to be told that i can't say a word because i was born one color -- >> hal: but that's like saying -- >> caller: another group -- >> hal: that's exactly the argument for am it's bigot because i don't want people to get married. >> caller: i'm not saying bigot. everybody in this country should be able to do whatever they want. speaking of that -- paula deen shouldn't be punished by saying a word she said 20 years ago just because of the color of her skin. >> hal: i don't think that was
7:57 am
just the reason. the use of her word had to do with just the color of her skin. george carlin is white. lenny bruce was jewish. you know, eddie murphy -- >> caller: richard pryor was black and said it all the time and made a living off it. >> hal: george carlin is white and he said it. he did not suffer the same ramifications paula deen did. what do you think the difference is -- >> caller: social media isn't as prevalent. >> hal: he didn't say it in passing conversation. >> caller: you had to pay extra to have hbo then. >> hal: they're all on netflix. that's not the point. i'm telling you -- >> caller: george carlin would have been -- >> hal: this isn't that long ago. this is three specials before he died. this is late '90s, early 2000s. what's the difference between when he used the word and she used the word? what's the difference? context and meaning. >> caller: i haven't a clue.
7:58 am
>> hal: he used it as a descriptive. >> caller: a comedian can say anything if it is in a comedy show. >> not anything. >> hal: michael richards said it. >> he got in trouble. >> hal: george carlin did not. what's the difference between those two gentlemen? context. meaning. where it comes from. the difference is you can say it in descriptive if you want to have a conversation about the importance of the word. you have the right to do that but you also have the right to be socially criticized for that. that's the difference because in how it's used, not that it's used. she's in trouble because she used it in a hateful manner. >> caller: not to be hateful. >> hal: we're up against the break. we have to go. you hear that a bunch that why is it okay for black people to say it and not white people to say it. >> context. >> hal: it isn't. it has been used in a lot of different settings. it is context. she's in trouble because of meaning. we'll be back right after this with more of "the stephanie miller show."
7:59 am
8:00 am
[ ♪ theme ♪ ] >> hal: an amazing day of news. and an amazing day for the discussions that we've been having. >> amazing because we can't stop talking about it during the break. >> that's a good sign. >> keep rolling over. >> hal: the news just keeps coming in. in the next hour, we've got karl frisch calling in. >> who was just at the supreme court. >> hal: he's there now for the reading of this. the dissent situation from scalia is classic. we'll get to that in this discussion and taking calls over the next hour. but first here's jacki
8:01 am
schechner. >> we'll do a little news first. president obama's twitter feed weighing in on doma. the tweet reads today's doma ruling is a historic step forward for american equality, love is law. twitter feed and not him directly because the president signs the tweets that he authors himself with the initials b.o. but he's currently en route to africa. likely -- he left instructions on what to say in response before he took off. in other news, there is some other news, where in the world is edward snowden? right now, the transit area of the moscow airport. which is somewhat of a no-man's-land with somewhat of an expiration date. if snowden holds a three-day russian transit visa, he can't hang out indefinitely although i'm sure he would love to. the u.s. has taken away his passport but wikileaks' julian assange claims the ecuadorian government has given him a document of passage. snowden has applied for asylum.
8:02 am
snowden can pay a small fine and that will get him out of the country. the fine is about $30. and newark mayor cory booker out with his first television ad, running for the late frank lautenberg's seat in the senate. highlighting his record as mayor, lower crime rate, small business growth and better public education and explaining he runs toward challenges, not away from them which of course, brings up the reminder booker did run into a burning building to save a neighbor. the special election for the seat is this october with a primary coming up august 13th. polls showing booker is an overwhelming favorite for the democratic nomination. the latest quinnipiac survey shows he wins support of 53% of state democrats. representatives rush holt and frank pill own get just 10% and 9% respectively. lamar alexander thinks we should get rid of the minimum wage. he said so yesterday during a labor committee hearing and a back and forth with senators harkin and sanders and a witness from the heritage foundation.
8:03 am
he flat out says he doesn't believe in the minimum wage at all. we're back after the break. (vo) next, current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. you know who is coming on to me now? you know the kind of guys that do reverse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that
8:04 am
current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?
8:05 am
8:06 am
i'm going to read you. >> they have a video, watch out.
8:07 am
>> i can't image now that gay marriage is legal all bets are off on the karl frisch video feed. >> i have to get a boyfriend before i get married. now at least there is that option. >> hal: we can make that happen. i'm the straight guy with the best gay hookups in town. as a gay adjacent, i also am the condite for all of my gay friends to find relationships. >> we've got travis and karl. we need a third and we can play the dating game. >> there we go. >> so, yeah, something happened today. >> hal: explain to us both on doma and prop 8 from your understanding how these went down and what the crucial points were on each that happened. >> well, the bullfight strategies office is conveniently located directly across the street from the supreme court. so i got there bright and early about 7:30, 7:45 this morning. there is also a pretty decent crowd. now the crowd is just teeming. and was out there the whole time waiting for the decisions to
8:08 am
come out. 10:00 came eastern when the decision started getting read. it was eerily quiet. you could cut the tension with a knife. little ripples when you get a big crowd together, not everybody has cell service. since the court refuses to broadcast its proceedings whether through live audio or television unfortunately, only those of us who live in the d.c. metro area or can afford to take a last-minute flight to washington can be a part of this history. only a few of those select people can get inside the room to watch it. little pockets would start bursting into applause and until you were near somebody whose cell phone got reception you didn't know what had happened. it spread through word of mouth through the thousand or so people out there. you don't want to believe it at first because as a member of the lgbt community we're used to things not going our way. we've had a very good few months. you start turning around and
8:09 am
saying who was the swing? on what grounds? then you find out it was equal protection. people need to understand how sweeping toma -- this decision on doma was. basically saying you can't treat gay people differently. the court has never -- i'm getting emotional. >> you should. >> i've never said that before ever. it is only under this president that we've ever had a federal law recognize gay people as needing protection and that was the hate crimes law. i tell you what, it is nice but it sucks that the first one had to be a law that protects us from getting beaten up. then you wait and you wait and you wait for the prop 8 decision to come down and i know the perries a bit. i know their sons and getting to see them enter the court you know very anxious and then the decision comes down. and there's so much that could have happened. it could have been sweeping and allowed marriage equality across
8:10 am
the country or they could have remanded it or they could have dismissed it on standing. they dismissed it on standing so it looks like marriage equality is coming back to california which is awesome. it is my home state. i'm happy that people up there will be able to be married. again, it would be great if all of the lgbt's families adjacents could have been watching what was happening in the courtroom. >> does this go into effect immediately out here in california? >> liberals like to actually wait to understand what the law is unlike the right wing. the voting right act gets obliterated. the schmucks in texas announce they're going to immediately go for their voter i.d. and redistricting rules. then they kick that woman basically down out of her filibuster, wendy davis. so, i think we're going to have to wait and see. i think at the very least at least the arguments i'm seeing from people who are attorneys is that this basically takes it
8:11 am
back to the attorney general and the governor not being allowed to enforce proposition 8. what we get out of that, i'm not entirely sure yet. but at the very least what we're look at is marriage equality in california. and that is a big deal. i mean we've gone from, i don't know the exact percentages but roughly, you know, five years ago, 8% living in a country that has marriage equality to yesterday it was 20% and now it's probably closer to a third. >> hal: right. by the way in kennedy's statement, he said that the law places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second tier marriage. the differentiation demeans the couple whose moral and sexual choice of the constitution protects and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify. >> not only that. this is what it says about you people and by you people, i mean straight people. doma singles out a class of persons deemed by a state
8:12 am
entitled to recognition of protection to enhance their own liberty. basically saying that doma basically says the straight marriages are deserving of more liberty than those of gay people and really what a sweeping decision. this is the kind of stuff that you can live an entire lifetime and not experience. this is the first of the major civil rights victories for the lgbt community. you have loving virginia that has a precedence in this. but this is a big deal. i mean think back to proposition 8's passage on the night that barack obama was elected president of the united states. lgbt people pouring in two directions. a president that will do something to catch up with the culture that has accepted lgbt people into their lives and families. he's done a lot of that. but at the same time been kicked in the stomach and taking to the streets in protest over
8:13 am
prop 8 and we weren't sure the community, should we sue or take it back to the ballot box and chad griffin at the hrc he brought this to court with ted olson and mr. boies, a legal odd couple. they believed in simple human dignity and freedom and liberty for everybody. regardless of their politics and these cases we may not be there with our legislatures yet. we're only getting a handful of republicans to support us. three republicans in the senate and three republican state legislators have passed where it passed legislatively. these two cases had huge backing for conservatives and republicans along with most of the democratic and progressive establishment. in amicus briefs, for example constitutional accountability center filed their briefs to get rid of doma and prop 8 with cato institute. that's how broad-based the opinion is on these decisions.
8:14 am
you're going to see right wing evangelical heads explode. almost as fun as watching the verdicts be read was seeing the solitary holdovers from another era with their one placard standing alone not smiling and not feeling the love that was in the air. >> hal: it is a stunning turn and very uplifting, especially in the face of the vra strike down yesterday. it has been a roller coaster ride of emotion over these bits but that equal protection aspect the reaffirming of equal protection for gay people also is, i think positive for the future of minority rights in this country across the board as well. and bodes well for the future of the country and i think we're in a situation where it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. they're not going to be able to do it. they're going to try desperately but it is a failed effort on
8:15 am
their side. >> this court is going to have to revisit the marriage equality issue. i'll tell you why. we're approaching a time when it will become difficult to swing more states to have marriage equality on a one by one basis or two by two basis there. are a half-dozen left that should be fairly easy. we'll be hitting states that have constitutional bans on marriage equality. and those states are all going to have different procedures for moving the bans. some places, the process itself cannot be sped up and takes at least six years. in six years 70% of this country will support marriage equality and the court will have no way to avoid granting marriage equality and frankly civil rights in every regard because remember today is a victory for marriage equality but gay people and transgender people can still be fired in roughly 30 states in this country just for who they love. they can be denied housing in 30 states because of who they love. they are -- if president obama were not president, mitt romney would make it or basically and
8:16 am
to republican name as president would make it so in almost half of states in this country the gay partner of somebody would not be allowed in the hospital to be with their loved one. gay kids can get beat up and be discriminated against in their schools in 20 some odd states in the country. the list goes on and on and on. and all of the different ways we're treated differently. the tide has turned on marriage equality. we're going to get there much more quickly than i think any of us would have thought five years ago. but this is only going to pave the way for making good on the constitution's promise on all of the other issues. >> hal: thank you, so much karl frisch for being there and calling in to us as well. it is an incredible thing. we're watching people making phone calls to loved ones from the steps of the supreme court. the president is calling to congratulate -- >> look at the faces of chad griffin and the other plaintiffs keeping their composure. if the president was calling me on my cell phone -- i would just
8:17 am
about lose my -- >> hal: to congratulate you on your newly-affirmed rights. >> i want to know when they're getting married. >> it is amazing news. i think it will take people a couple of days. i still haven't called my lesbian sister. >> what are you doing to celebrate today, karl? >> right now i'm working because now the work is in defending this case. bullfight strategies is involved in the pushing on these various cases or closely with the constitutional accountability center which filed an amicus brief in this case. we're happy with this decision. the fight continues. i said a couple of times during this interview, there are hundreds of thousands of gay people who were shut out by this court today. by not being able to take part in this and not be able to see the oral arguments because they couldn't afford to fly out here. drop everything yesterday when they found out they would have
8:18 am
the decision today to stand in front of a building we should be able to watch. directly across the street from the supreme court is the u.s. capitol, the broadcasting its debates for decades on c-span, the supreme court should be doing the same thing. in that supreme court, there is a little room where special lawyers get to sit in nice, comfortable lounge listening to the live audio of the supreme court arguments and decisions and they do not broadcast it live outside of the building and that's a travesty. >> hal: thank you karl frisch. congrats and keep up the good work. >> love you. congratulations. >> hal: we'll be back right after this with more of "the stephanie miller show." your calls at 1-800-steph-12.
8:19 am
8:20 am
8:21 am
8:22 am
(vo) an eleven story building just came down on your head. can you make it out the front door?
8:23 am
>> hal: welcome back to the show. i'm hal sparks. listening to cinderella. it is a good thing. it is a good time. of bottom line here, the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriage is dead. california's ban on recognizing same-sex marriage is dead. there are 12 states in the country where this is now legal and the political winds on this are blowing so hard in one direction that the idea we will go back is almost unimaginable in any state in the country. this is now decided as a nation. the argument is won. >> although -- >> hal: that's a quote from rachel maddow. >> although i will argue that in the post-roe v. wade era we're still fighting against
8:24 am
limitations on a woman's right to choose so now that we have the historic legal decisions and it is amazing and we're totally moving in the right direction as karl mentioned, the work is not done. >> hal: vigilance is important. the case she's making is that much like i think rowe roe v. wade, the vast majority of the public is on our side. and whereas with roe v. wade, it has been around for awhile. i think the right is under the impression that they can attack it and get away with it. >> matthew breen is with us right now. he can help us break down the legality of this. >> from the advocate. >> hal: hi, matthew. are you with us? >> yes very good morning to you both. >> hal: thanks for being with us. now, clearly a huge deal. >> yeah. fantastic day. >> hal: what's the highlight for you and what are the caveats? >> the highlight is essentially
8:25 am
that although the supreme court did not rule on same-sex marriage unto itself, whether it was a constitutionally protected idea or not, they did allow that the states determined who can be married which is the case in -- for example prop 8. the court decide decided that california gets to decide who gets married and they have their processes for that and then the doma case, the court eliminated the federal government's interference with the rights for a american. if you're in a state where you can get gay married, you can get gay married and the federal government cannot deny you the rights being married. gay people should get the rights as well. >> hal: but on a per state basis. >> but on a per state basis. exactly. the court upheld the idea that the states get to determine who gets married which for the most part has been are you 16, 127 18 -- 16, 17, 18, first cousins or not.
8:26 am
the case that allowed for interracial marriage and the fifth amendment which cites equal protection. so it cited those two near the top of the opinion as reasons that the defense of marriage act was unconstitutional. >> hal: right. >> the caveat is that it did not address the idea that one state can deny another state's -- the right to confer by marriage in another state. if i'm married in new york state and go to alabama i'm no longer married there. >> right. >> which is why the next step for doma which still exists is a legislative repeal of doma. that's the next big legislative challenge. we still have to repeal doma. doma still interferes with our ability to be married in places if we move. as happens in a lot of -- because in the advocate, we were reporting on people who have
8:27 am
married in one place and moved to another. that's a part of the whole system of american rights we have in this country. it is this tangled morass. literally, moving across the border can change what rights you have. >> hal: what it is doma was a guarantee of the state by state law. and what we would need is a legislative or judicial response to -- that some say states will not allow it at this point. doma is unconstitutional. for all practical purposes, it was struck down permanently today. the difference is it doesn't, by it striking it down, like the repeal of don't ask don't tell, don't ask don't tell is not just a repeal of people in the service now can serve openly but that going forward open service is the actual law of the land as opposed to don't ask don't
8:28 am
tell, sort of still exists or people won't be punished for it. it is now you can openly serve and state that you are gay outwardly. going for it. that was a double hit of that particular law. the half of doma is that the legislative limit aches is -- limitation is it doesn't force other states that are making it illegal to make it legal. >> right. >> few sections. section three was the part that was challenged by it. section three was the part they struck down as unconstitutional meaning the federal government, if your state grants you the right -- if a state determines you can be married they have to give you the right. section two is the sticking point. doma section two is the part that says one state does not have to recognize another state's marriage. >> that is in court heading to court, where does that stand now? >> there is no case headed to the supreme court on section 2 of doma. so that's why kristen gill --
8:29 am
gillibrand is setting up the repeal of doma. they'll still see there still are very unfair restrictions to our rights even associated with marriage across the country. so we'll need a legislative appeal. i'm not sure kristin gillibrand has been talking about lately. we'll have to see what kind of effort is, you know, i'm hoping people will channel their energies that they've been using to move public opinion on same-sex marriage that has really actually been very influential i think in this case to, you know, the legislative repeal of doma to the full, you know, enactment of the repeal. >> hal: national marriage rights. >> we still have lots of -- >> hal: no question. >> long ways to go. i hope that we can challenge the energy and keep this tide. >> hal: we gotta go. i'm out of time. thank you, so much, matthew from
8:30 am
the advocate. we'll be back right after this. >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. >> if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv.
8:31 am
8:32 am
8:33 am
cenk off air alright in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks! i think the number 1 thing than viewers like about the young turks is that were honest. they know that i'm not bsing them for some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know i'm going to be the first one to call them out. cenk on air>> what's unacceptable is how washington continues to screw cenk off air i don't want the middle class taking the brunt of the spending cuts and all the different programs that wind up hurting the middle class. cenk on air you got to go to the local level, the state level and we have to fight hard to make sure they can't buy our politics anymore. cenk off air and they can question if i'm right about that. but i think the audience gets that, i actually mean it. cenk on air 3 trillion dollars in spending cuts! narrator uniquely progressive and always topical the worlds largest online news show is on current tv. cenk off air and i think the audience gets, "this guys to best of his abilities is trying to look out for us." only on current tv!
8:34 am
>> hal: welcome back to the show. on the line with us now, shane joining us from the steps of the supreme court as well. shane, of course, the backbone of the thom hartmann show i will just say. so amazingly helpful when i need to do my show out of the d.c. area. so up on everything. hey, shane, how are you? >> how you doing hal sparks? big day.
8:35 am
i'm joining you actually from the studio. i walked back from the supreme court. i was inside of the court when the ruling came down. and amazing language, you know. a lot of times you know, the justices, when they issue their opinions, they're written out in legalese. from the bench they've got their own statement which kind of are the cliff notes but more on how they feel about the decision. comparing kennedy to scalia was just amazing to listen to. i know karl frisch, first half hour, he nailed the law. everybody knows what went on. huge sweeping decision. a lot of the pundits before this ruling came down thought that doma would really hinge on state's rights. that the supreme court would not get involved in a federal level. each one of you states can decide. kennedy did much more than that. he specifically said the states have decide the that the
8:36 am
government in some states has come to see the discrimination against same-sex couples as unjust. he used this term which is amazing. these couples should have -- should be able to show pride in themselves and pride in their unions. he used the term "pride" which is very cool. i know it is kind of legalese but meaning the federal government telling the states what to do. he did not base it on that. he based it on the fifth amendment which is a sweeping decision. this gigantic -- it opens up a whole bunch of rights when it comes to equal protection that can be used down the road by advocates of -- it is wonderful. but scalia was ticked. just pissed. he essentially went on and on about how the court should not be doing this but then went into a really wound diatribe of i'm not a homophobe because i want to discriminate. we can discriminate but we're
8:37 am
not doing it out of malice because what justice kennedy said is doma -- the text and history of this, at its essence meant to create a second class under american law a federal marriage law. you know, it had no legitimate purpose and justice scalia and it is not homophobic whatsoever. stop calling me that. very disgruntled. amazing. amazing day. >> just released a statement from the white house saying yeah, that the statement is this was discrimination enshrined in law. it committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. the supreme court has righted the wrong and our country is better off for it. it goes on to say so we welcome today's decision and i've directed the attorney general to work with other members of my cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision including its implications for federal benefits and obligations. it's implemented swiftly and smoothly. then he goes on to talk about religion which is interesting.
8:38 am
how religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has been up to those institutions. nothing about this decision which applies only to civil americans changes that. so, interesting to bring that up within the context of this. it is about a four and a half paragraph statement. >> hal: shane in looking at this it sounds like he's laying the ground work for the future fight that you know, state to state. when we get to those 13 states that we're arguing yesterday about why they should be able to disenfranchise black voters and hispanic voters and women if we can help it. there's too many of them. those folks when we get around to legalizing gay marriage, that's where a federal remedy is going to come in. it sounds like they're laying the legal ground work for that exact thing. >> there is one way that that
8:39 am
can come up relatively soon. while the ruling today on doma dealt with section 3 there is still another section of doma that hasn't been ruled on and still technically the law. that's section 2 which says that alabama, you don't have to recognize the same-sex marriage of someone married in new york. now, if they struck that down, i think that would remedy the situation pretty quickly. >> hal: they have to show the reason prop 8 was kicked back down to california was because the people who brought it were not victims of the law and had no standing to bring the case. so all we really need is a gay couple to -- you know, get married in one of the states where it is legal and then move. maybe because of a job which would give them a specific legal victim hood that would be recognized on a monetary level by the court which they're big fans of. even if they just decided we would like to live in alabama because that's where we are from --
8:40 am
>> the constitution does guarantee the right to live among the states. if you exercise that right to move and i would like to move to alabama, they'll say no. it will be a lawsuit. >> hal: exactly. the couple will be able to bring a direct victimhood specific case against the law. the people who are supporting the law will have a real hard time, if they have, bringing -- response -- >> the california case would be different than alabama, i would imagine simply because in the state of california, the governor the attorney general decided we find the prop 8 is unconstitutional. we as state officials aren't going to defend it. if they had there would have been an actual ruling. there would have been standing. i would imagine the state officials in alabama will stand up and defend those cases so they will be standing on appeals, et cetera. at some point the supreme court will have to get to that probably. if the congress doesn't act in such a repeal to which it may.
8:41 am
>> should we bring up where this falls in the immigration debate. according to what i'm reading the doma decision has a positive impact for gay and lesbian and bisexual binational couples where one person is a u.s. citizen and can then sponsor their partner to their -- their foreign-born partner to get a green card. this came up in the immigration debate. patrick leahy's amendment would he was trying to get equal rights for same-sex couples and that was struck down within the amendment process but now it seems that this decision would extend benefits. barring any sort of republican move to somehow negate it. that this now extends the benefits to same-sex couples and we kind of get around the need for that amendment within the immigration debate. >> certainly the current federal laws, for example you hear people who married a foreign -- their foreign bride and they get a green card and over time, that person they marry becomes a citizen.
8:42 am
that is affected by the doma decision. same-sex marriages will also have the same sex rights now. the question is will the congress try another way? some interesting way to write this into the new immigration bill. it will be interesting to do so based on this process. >> that's the question now. are they going to look for another way to get around this or does this trump anything they're able to do hopefully. >> it is very broad. i can't imagine one but they're pretty creative. >> it will be interesting to see what happens. certainly leahy's amendment is not necessary anymore. it is just a matter of if the conservatives bring up such an amendment to make sure it doesn't pass. >> this could be good for immigration reform in that it takes one big chunk that conservatives were opposed to out of the equation in some way. >> or it could cut the other way and now they have -- more of their alarmist rhetoric saying
8:43 am
we're going have same-sex mexicans oh, no, oh, no. >> because that's a threat. >> hal: we'll have all of the gay canadians coming down here trying to not have government healthcare. the gay canadian couples who hate national -- >> access to healthcare. >> hal: who are charging across the border. >> i would rather go bankrupt in america. >> hal: then i guess shane this would be the big question is you know next step being you know, there is a bunch of states that will fall like domino's. they won't want to go through the legal wrangling of something that will lose in the first place. you'll have the super states that decided a long time ago that along with teaching creationism, they're going to keep the gay out and you know, only white male landowners should vote. they'll do everything in their power to make sure anybody who doesn't have those has the most hurdles to jump through. getting the vote. but that equal protection aspect
8:44 am
aspect -- >> that's huge. two ways to go. one is you have to recognize the other states. other one is to say whatever you enacted in your state violates the federal constitution. and when it comes to states, the 14th amendment as opposed to the fifth. that's the next battle. state by state issue. the same states applauding the vra decision yesterday. you're going to have a group of people conservatives yesterday who were applauding judicial activism and denouncing it today. >> hal: same thing is true on the left if we're not careful. we need to -- look at the narrow casting of what they're doing and it is almost as if they threw a bone to their conservative fellows first and almost to soften the blow. we'll release doma on wednesday and other stuff on tuesday so they think maybe they'll have a legislative solution to this because we'll keep all of the people they don't want who are
8:45 am
voting now liberals and college students and you know, black kids from voting because they'll -- they help make this possible. if we want to solve the gay marriage problem, we can keep the people who might be supportive of it. by stetting up the barriers. >> who knows what's going on in the mind of the justices. >> hal: of some them are saying them and some of what scalia is saying is very telling. thank you, shane farnen. shane know and daniel have their own show on talking left. is the web site. check it out. bookmark it. always awesome. thank you so much, shane. thanks for being there today too. we'll be back right after this. more of "the stephanie miller show" and your calls at 1-800-steph-12. a bunch of peep have been holding on to -- a bunch of people holding on to talk about the paula deen. keep it high and tight so that we can get everybody in because there's a bunch of them. this is going to be a big day.
8:46 am
i'll be on logo later on talking about this probably chnn and probably "huff post" live all day long because this is going to be a topic of conversation for quite a bit. we'll be back after this. inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. you know who is coming on to me now? you know the kind of
8:47 am
guys that do reverse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?
8:48 am
8:49 am
john fugelsang: if you believe in states rights but still support the drug war you must be high. cenk uygur: i think the number one thing viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. i think the audience gets that i actually mean it. michael shure: this show is about being up to date so a lot of my work happens by doing the things that i am given to doing anyway. joy behar: you can say anything here. jerry springer: i spent a couple of hours with a hooker joy behar: your mistake was writing a check jerry springer: she never cashed it (vo) the day's events. four very unique points of view. tonight starting at 6 eastern. (vo) an eleven story building
8:50 am
just came down on your head. can you make it out the front door? >> hal: i'm such a fan of this album. ozzy osbourne, no rest for the wicked. >> this and blizzard of oz. you looking at me, me looking at you. >> hal: amazing stuff. i just -- >> check, please!
8:51 am
>> hal: the look in. >> i'm a guitar player. it is wild amazing. >> hal: black label society rules. we're going to take some calls too. especially dealing with the paula deen stuff. everybody who is on the line, we have a lot of calls. make sure you get your call in really quick. shirley in florida. hi shirley. >> caller: hi. how are you today? >> hal: i'm great. >> caller: i just wanted to express my opinion about paula deen. i don't think that she was mean and ugly about -- didn't she just say it is sometimes okay to use the "n" word. >> hal: she used it specifically to describe certain black people. there is an issue with her -- the hiring practices that her company and over time, this second class tier and the biggest one was that when she was planning her wedding she used the "n" word to describe how she wanted black people to dress and act. she wanted a southern plantation
8:52 am
theme. if i had a wedding and gone my wife's japanese and we're going to get married so what i would love to have is make her family wear giant buck teeth dentures and japanese war uniforms like the old warner bros. cartoons, people would clearly see that as horribly racist and rightly so. >> caller: i don't see anything wrong with that. my son married a girl from korea. they had that wedding and then they had another one and paula deen -- >> hal: where everybody dressed up like caricatures of asian people. >> hal: no, they wore the clothing -- the traditional clothing. that's not what i'm talking about. wearing traditional clothing is not what i'm talking about. like racial stereotypes. >> caller: you know, i don't know how they put their -- they focus on that when they should put their energy toward making our world better. paula deen has worked hard to get where she is today. >> hal: there's lots of people who have done that.
8:53 am
>> caller: right, they have. a lot of people. i notice in your remarks, you were making fun of southern people. i could be offended by that but i'm not. >> i don't think he's making fun of southern people. >> caller: someone said you had a brother named bubba. what's wrong with that. >> you didn't say that. >> no, he didn't. the other lady did. then just like the black angry lady. she said that she felt like crying or either go out and start burning cars. i mean what kind of remark is that? also -- >> hal: she was being facetious. i understand why -- where you're coming from. >> another lady said she felt empowered when she used the word "and." when they use jesus christ's name in vain that, offends me. i don't understand why i have to hear it. >> freedom of speech in this country. >> caller: okay, my point! >> you have the right to be
8:54 am
offended by whatever you want to be offended by. >> caller: you said freedom of speech. >> you can say whatever you want. >> caller: what's wrong with paula deen saying what she said? >> hal: by the way she's not -- they're not stopping her from working because she said that. she has the legal freedom of speech. freedom of speech is protection against the government stopping you from speaking your mind. that's the rule itself. but nothing's going to stop social criticism of you and if the vast majority of people are not comfortable with not just the language you use but the context with which you use it which is the important part here. then they have -- if isn't the word. i'll tell you why. because if you use -- if i use the word jerk in talking to a friend of mine, dude, you're being a jerk or i call someone in traffic whom i do not know a jerk, the reaction from that human being is going to be different because there is a contextual difference in how i'm using that word. would you agree? >> no.
8:55 am
why would the person in traffic apparently he did something to upset you and so you called him a jerk. your friend was being a jerk. >> my friend knows i don't mean it in harm. the stranger does not. correct? >> the stranger doesn't hear you. >> hal: okay. so you're avoiding the conversation about it. >> caller: no, i'm not avoiding, i'm just trying to prove my point that people should put their energy to more important things than focus on someone try ing to be torn down. we're all equal. i don't care. >> hal: how would you say they're not punished at all. i think the denial of voting machines in black districts is a form of punishment culturally, would you not say that? >> caller: i would say that. you know that for a fact? that's very wrong. because black people have the right to do anything that the white people or any other race
8:56 am
has to do. >> hal: absolutely. i do respect black people but i think that they push their rights sometimes as far as this word. it is just a word. why can't they shake it off and go on? >> hal: because people like paula deen use it to describe it in a derogatory way toward their entire race and dismiss them based on the color of their skin using it. that's why. and i think that's a legitimate thing. let's go to jeff in georgia who has also been holding on a long time. we gotta rush through these. >> caller: how you doing? >> hal: good. >> caller: i'm glad to hear the last conversation that you just had because you were so close in explaining to that lady and a few other callers why the "n" word cannot be used. here is the reason why. the reason why this is a psa for white folks. in the past, when we had slavery, that word was used to
8:57 am
describe an entity that was 3/50 of a human and -- 3/5 of a human and could be killed and or sold off, broken up families and all. so the connotation of the word has something to do with how slave owners viewed their slaves. >> hal: right. >> caller: now the reason why that white people can't use the word and black people can is because when a white person uses it even somebody as cool as you, we have no idea if you mean it as i'm a 3/5 of a human beyond the derogatory. we have no idea. what you mean. instead of trying to figure it out, we prefer that you did not say it. >> hal: i agree jeff. here's what i will say. not only that but have a rule which is that you cannot -- you can only joke up. you can only make jokes at or toward people in a station who are equal than you or better than you. now, that's a good reason why --
8:58 am
a good example is i don't do jokes against gay people in my act. the reason is because they can't get married in every state of the country. straight people can. and so when people go i make fun of everybody. not everybody has the same rights and protections that you do. so when you make fun of someone who has less rights and protections than you do, you're actually shooting arrows they cannot defend themselves against. black people in certain sections of this country, do not, do not receive the same protections as white people do. even to this day. the illusion that they do is the hard part. jeff, thank you for calling in. we only have 30 seconds left in the show. i'm sorry to the other callers we didn't get to because we had such a big day. we're definitely going to talk about this more. >> absolutely. >> hal: call back in tomorrow. we'll discuss both the texas abortion law which they tried to sneak through and they were unable to do and they're going to have a new special session. the voting rights act and gay rights tomorrow, big day in figuring what all of this means.
8:59 am
9:00 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on