tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC February 10, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PST
going to be a big campaign issue because the conservatives are big time on the social issues right now, we'll talk more about it. terry o'neill, thank you. that is "the ed show" i'med schultz, follow me on twitter at ed show, follow me on facebook. the "the rachel maddow show" starts now. good evening, ed, thank you at home for joining us this hour. okay, are you ready? august, 2007 through october 2008. republicans are for cap and trade. >> joe lieberman and i, my favorite democrat, and i have proposed legislation called cap and trade. >> cap and trade there will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a free market approach. >> he has a good cap and trade policy he supports. >> for cap and trade, okay? now same republicans, same policy, couple years later, 2010. >> i have to address a little
bit of the cap and tax is what i call it not cap and trade, and the devastation as was already suggested that it would have on our country if it were to pass. >> i will not and cannot align myself with a giant government slush fund. it, it's the end of the world. september, 2008, republicans are in favor of bailing out the banks. to the point of john boehner weep be about it on the floor of the house. >> i ask you both sides of the aisle, what is in the best
interests of our country? not what is in the best interest of our party or reelection, what is in the best interest of our country, vote yes. >> vote yes. vote yes to bail out the banks. okay, now, same republican, same policy, a year or two later, in 2009 and 2010. >> i'm going to ask my colleagues, if you have enough of bail outs and tarp, do the right thing for the american people. they are already saying enough is enough. lets end tarp, pay down the deficit. cut spending back to 2008 levels. and back before the bail outs and the stimulus and all the nonsense. >> all that nonsense. that i wept and begged you to vote for. they were all for the bail out idea, now they are not only against it it's the end of the world. june, 2009, republicans are in
favor of of an individual mandate for health insurance. >> when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle ought to lie the same way for health insurance, because everybody has some health insurance cost and if you are not insured there is no free lunch. i believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates. >> yay individual mandates. same republican, same policy, 2010. >> i personally think and i think constitutional lawyers think the mandate in itself is unconstitutional because never before in the 225 year history of our country has the federal government said you had to buy anything. >> republicans came up with the individual map date idea, all for the individual mandate idea, and now they are not only against it, it's the end of the world. okay, just one more,check it out. >> women shouldn't be held hostage by virtue of where they
live. all we're saying in this legislation is that if health insurance plans provide coverage for prescription drugs, that that coverage has to extend to fda approved prescription contraceptives. it's that simple. >> that was the day before 9-11, september 10th, 2001. republican senator olympia snowe pushing along with five colleagues in the senate and 15 republicans in the house, the republican idea that contraception must be covered by health department insurance plans. like cap and trade, like the bank bail out, individual mandate for health reform, all these things, it is a republican idea. but now they are not only against that republican idea, it's the end of the world. >> the obama administration has crossed a dangerous line. >> mr. president? ms. sebelius, you have overstepped the boundaries, you have violated our constitutional rights, we will fight.
>> in imposing this requirement the federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries. >> mr. president, ms. sebelius you've crossed the line. >> this is a particular gift of the modern republican party. this is why the word conservative is a misnomer. the word means you don't want things to change, right? you want to conserve things the way they are. you want to stand shouting stop, conservative, right? in the modern republican party, change is an art form. they are not only happy to turn against their own ideas and quickly, they are happy to denounce anybody who espouses what used to be their own ideas as the anti-christ for having allowed the previously republican idea to cross their mind. today, a group of students from universities affiliated with the catholic church held an event at the national press club. they did it to let the cat out of the bag. to let the cat out of the bag on the actual position instead of
the political position of institutions like catholic hospitals and universities. remember, the purported outrage is any catholic university would ever provide health insurance that covered prescription birth control. that is supposedly the outrage. >> i have four daughters, two of whom attended a catholic university, and i want to say clearly that catholic women of this generation know that they need contra tiff coverage. 98% of catholic women use contraceptives. 98%. 28 states already require large institutions, catholic institutions cover contraceptive. 28 states. >> 77% of catholic law schools already provide contraception coverage to students. >> cat is out of the bag. tons of catholic universities already provide for health insurance that covers contraception. including a big majority of catholic law schools.
they are already doing this thing they are supposedly so outraged by. if a catholic university covers contraception in the health insurance plan was going to cause the end of the world the way republicans are saying, since it is happening, we can conclude the end of the world is not so bad. at least after the world ends, we still have cable news. in these 28 state, there is state law that requires employers, including in many cases employ anothers associated with religious institutions to provide health insurance that covers contraception. that is already the law of the land in these 28 states. there was a reason you have not been deafened by the cries of outrage over the policy in these 28 states. nobody in the republican party decided that would be an outrage until now, until they could use it against president obama even though they never cared about it before. actually, in eight of those 28 states that require health insurance to cover contraception, there is not an exemption for churches.
that is true of all these godless places, georgia and iowa, and montana. the obama admioposni new rule o insurance which says religious institutions like churches do knots have to provide health insurance that covers contraception, the new rules from the obama administration would give church as new exemption from that law they never had before. in eight states the obama administration rule would car of out more space for churches to evade the rules that everybody else has to operate by on the basis of their religious believes. more space for the proverbial amish bus driver rule to get invoked. hire a guy to be bus driver, once he has the job, bus driver, he can cite the fact he's amish as the reason he won't drive the bus. i personally along with many other people across the country, eight states across the country think it's bizarre there should be religious belief exemptions from having to follow laws like this. their rules will exempt
churches, which eight states don't do. they are super sensitive to religious institutions. their rules are pre sis lie what was proposed biolimb pea yeah snowe and other republicans in 2001 but yet denounced as liberal abombination. anyone who disagrees with republican position on this toy day, according to the folks at fox, should never have been born at all. >> to get it started i thought we would also start with the panelist who couldn't be with us today. ladies and gentlemen, we'll hear from rachel maddow. >> mitt romney is campaigning saying he would like to end --. >> ask the bishops. >> he would like to end all family planning support at the federal level, eliminate title x. rick santorum would like states to make contraception illegal. you can try to make this an
issue that democrats hate religious, churches were ex-emmed from the beginning. this is about health insurance, the republican party is waging war on contraception. >> i think she is the best arguments in favor of her parents using contraception. i would be all for that. all the rest of the crowd at msnbc, too, for that matter. >> that happened at cpack at conservative political action. mr. fox news person i'm sorry i feel i wish i had never been born, personally, i'm glad that you were born. otherwise how would republicans get the special fox news bat signal that it's time to be outraged now about what used to be republicans own policy idea. joining us now is jan schakowski, thank you for joining us, nice to have you here.
>> thank you i'm awfully glad you were born, rachel. >> thank you, i sort of feel that should become a generic greeting now. nice to see you, glad you were born. >> that's right. >> since this issue has blown up so hugely in the media, are you hearing from your constituents on this issue, what are you hearing from people? >> you know, rachel, it is so astonishing to me that in 2012, we're actually having to defend the right of women to have contraception when virtually 100% of women who are sexually active in their lifetime use contraception. the case is closed. the deal is done. all women expect to have access to contraception, and the great thing about what the obama administration said that no matter where they work, they should be able to get this, with no co-pay because contraception can be expensive. and you know, i think for women this is just not an issue, except for a few women, who want
to go along with a narrow band of bishops, who actually have said this anthony picarello says no employer should provide contraception. if he leaves being director of the bishops and open a taco bell, he shouldn't have to be able to have to provide insurance coverage for contraception because he's a good catholic. imagine. >> why was this not controversial when republicans proposed it federally a decade ago or 28 states put it in law, it's law in 28 states across the country, yet we have not heard a peep about it. do you think this is a manufactured controversy? >> absolutely i do. because i think that we have seen that these churches, that these hospitals, let's remember too, talking about hospital, talking about universities that operate in the public space, they get public dollars, they
get special tax breaks because they are not for profit institutions, and they hire people and we're talking about janitors and seconds and nurses and students, and they have been doing this for a long time in more than half of the country. and now all of a sudden, this has become an assault on religious freedom in our country? it is incredible to me in this 21st century we're having this debate. >> but why do you think we are? one of the things i think is interesting is the timing. this had been out and known for weeks before anybody started crowing about it. obviously catholic church decided to make an issue, had the clergy read to it people at sunday mass. we saw newt gingrich pick it up on the campaign trail, thereafter which treated the country to the spectacle of newt gingrich lecturing the country. there was a decision mailed to
make it a political issue, do you think they have calculated this will succeed as a political issue, this will harm the administration? >> first of all i think they have made a wrong political calculation, most of the people in favor of this are men who are saying we should change the rules but i think they also may have waited until after the jobs numbers came out, the unemployment numbers came out, the economy seems to be doing better, and so let's go back to the culture wars. we think that works. but i think this is a serious miscalculation. don't they even read the polls? i thought they were poll-driven when the majority of americans including catholics, men and women that were polled say the ha jort think that all em ploilers including catholic hall of fames and universities ought to provide health care coverage, includes contraception, i don't know what they are thinking and when they make this calculation.
i think they are really off base. and the women in congress, the democratic women in congress have been absolutely fierce about it and i appreciate that. so calling on women as they did with the susan g. komen protest to now protest this effort, which i think is even more serious to take away their right to birth control. >> jan schakowski of illinois, thank you for being with us to tonight i appreciate it. >> thank you, rachel. tonight, a special until death do us part edition of the best new thing in the world, very excited for that. big banks nearly tanked the economy, eric schneiderman will join us for an interview. big show coming up ahead.
>> who do you think pays for those ads? surgeon general's office? national institutes of health? mayo clinic? try the tobacco companies. why in the world would the tobacco companies pay for ads telling you how dangerous their products are, how you shouldn't use them under any circumstances? because the federal government made them do it. after decades of selling products total general public that were harmful, after not fessing up to the risks they were creating, after using deceptive, fraudulent business practices, getting very rich alt the expense of the lives of their customers, they got caught. the federal government along with 46 states banded together and sued the tobacco industry, they sued the top four tobacco companies in the country and they won. they beat them. in winning they force the the tobacco industry in a massive cash settlement. that was 1998. made the tobacco companies pay more than $200 billion to the
states to cover the public health nightmare their industry had caused. and it made them fund new anti-smoking ad campaigns like those super blunt truth ads you see all the time now. industry that caused a lot of pain to a lot of americans was held accountable for that, 1998. today the federal government reached the single largest settlement with one industry since the giant tobacco settlement in 1998, the industry in question is this one. the mortgage industry, the one that destroyed the american economy by turning your house in a casino chip. the industry that created the means of trading and betting and getting rich on other people's homes. leaving behind millions of foreclosures, broken family, a shattered economy and entire banking sector that survived thanks to the graciousness of u.s. taxpayers. today after three years of those banks getting away scott-free, there was a little measure of accountability. >> by now it's well-known
millions of americans who did the right thing and the responsible thing, shopped for a house, secured a mortgage, that they could afford, made their payments on time, were nevertheless hurt badly by the irresponsible actions of others. it was wrong, and it cost more than four million families to lose their homes. banks will be required to right these wrongs. that means more than just paying a fee. these banks will put billions of dollars toward relief for families across the nation. they will provide refinancing for borrowers stuck in high interest rate mortgages, they will reduce loans for family whose owe more on their homes than they are worth. and they will deliver some measure of justice for families that have been victims of abusive practices. >> today, president obama and the attorneys general from 49 different states announced the
terms of a giant settlement they reached with the nation's five largest mortgage providers. bank bank of america, jp morgan chase, citi group, wells fargo and allied financial. some of it will be in form of the direct payments, some will go toward reducing the size of exit gs mortgages, some will allow people under water to refinance their homes. in the grand scheme of things when you look at the scale of the crisis this industry caused, the settlement is in some ways a drop in the bucket. these banks helped mona $700 billion hole in the housing industry, and this is a $25 billion band-aid. but here's the thing. when the federal government nailed the tobacco industry to the wall in 1998, there was one really important provision of the settlement. it released the signing tobacco companies from any future lawsuits by the state and local governments that participate in
the settlement. was a one and done thing. yeah, they had to pay but they would never have to pay again. this time with the mortgage industry, that is not the case. >> the settlement also protects our ability to further investigate the practices that caused this mess and this is important. the mortgage fraud task force i announced in my state of the union address retains full authority to aggressively investigate the packaging and selling of risky mortgages that led to this crisis. this investigation is already well nfr way and working close with state attorneys general we'll keep at it until we hold those who broke the lawfully accountable. >> in other words, this $25 billion is the beginning and not the end. it is step one of a long effort to hold accountable an industry that has so far fled the scene of a fire they lit in the first place. joining us next, for the interview is one of the state attorneys general key not only to the deal getting done, but to
we have reached a landmark settlement with the nation's largest banks that will speed relief to the hardest hit homeowners, and some of the most abusive practices of the mortgage industry. and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that left so many damage in its wake. this settlement is a start.
we'll make sure that the banks live up to their end of the bargain. >> a start. that was president obama today describing the most substantial effort yet, a $25 billion settlement demanded of the nation's mortgage industry, five of the country's largest banks. joining us tonight for the interview is eric schneiderman new york state's attorney general, co-chair of the mortgage fraud task force, mr. attorney general, thank you for being here. >> great to be here, rachel. >> i think throughout the whole process, a lot of people who are angry about the lack of accountability for the financial disaster for wall street have been looking at you to get a sense of whether this was a good deal, whether this was a good idea or whether this would be something that would let the banks off scott free. why did you decide in the end to sign on? >> when i first got engaged with this about a year ago the banks were, as you pointed out, they were asking for a general release, they wanted a release for all their misconduct including that blew up the economy. the only thing settled today had
to do with robo signing and abuses in the foreclosure crisis after they had driven people under water. i refused a general release, as we talked about it more, more of my colleagues joined me. we whittled down the releases the bank still face all the exposure for the conduct that blew up the economy, securities fraud, tax fraud, insurance fraud, everything that provides as you pointed out about the tobacco industry, the big liability, not the 25 or 30, they are is a facing hundreds of billions of liability for claims against them preserved that our working group is pursuing very aggressively and we have a down payment, to day is a down payment, first step as the resident pointed out will get relief to people, in new york we got $136 million, most of which will go for legal services for housing counseling, no new yorker is ever wrongfully evicted because they don't have a lawyer.
but in the long run the main thing is what is not in the settlement. we did not release the claims for the biggest misconduct, we'll hold the people accountable and i'm very pleased with the aggressiveness of the effort since the president announced our working group to investigate the conduct take blew up the economy a few weeks ago. >> when you talk about hundreds of billions of dollars in potential liability from other actions against wall street because of the crisis, do you expect those actions will come from state attorneys general suing at the state level, do you think those will come in terms of federal cases, where will they come from? >> when we formed our joint investigation to go after that, which was announced a few weeks ago, we combined all the agencies, state and federal to give us the broadest jurisdiction possible, so in new york we have some of the most aggressive and flexible securities laws in the country. there are things we can't do that for example the internal revenue service can do, consumer financial protection bureau can do. the groups put together in the working group have the broadest jurisdiction and believe me, there are people who are hungry
to get going. this includes possibility of criminal liability and whole variety of areas. release today gave up no criminal liability. that is still on the table. gave up no rights of homeowners, very important point there is relief in this for homeowners but no individual homeowner is barred from suing the banks. why couldn't they sue the banks before? they didn't have lawyers, we got the money to get a lot of lawyers on the payroll of legal service and legal aid, groups cut to the bone to help those people being foreclosed on, get justice. >> what about the case in missouri where the state attorney general has brought a criminal indictment with poe ten shall jail times as penalties in a case relitted to robo signing. is that precluded? >> every possible criminal case is on the table. every case related to the conduct that melted the economy, inflation of the housing bubble and crash, pre-2007, still on the table. i filed a lawsuit challenging the use of mers, shadow mortgage
electronic service. in our case like the others that had gone before, named the banks for their abuse of mers and the mers corp itself. they are preserved. we gave up very little by way of releases of liability for the banks. the big aliability is out there big payday to come this is a down payment, for people who are really hurting, who needed rules in place right away to stop abuses in the foreclosure process this is a step, a step and better deal not just because i said no, but because there was a public outcry, really, and a lot of groups organized, labor unions, housing activists, moveon, civil rights group to demand releases be narrowed, one set of rules for everyone, there be some accountability, this is a victory for those groups today the big cases are still going to go forward and in the short term, the public still gets a down payment toward justice. >> in the big picture here, what
you are describing is a 180 turn or 90 degree turn in washington and with state authorities but really in washington. in terms of the aggressiveness with which people will be can -- accountable. >> why didn't it happen before? >> what we've seen is a swing toward progressive populism in the country. i'm just a part of it. you wouldn't imagine the demand for accountability for the occupy movement would have taken place. for the president to say everyone should pay their fair share, there has to be one set of rules for everyone in the state of the union speech and back it up by empowering our task force to investigate the frauds that is a dramatic move and a lot of progressives forget, it's not who you elect, it's providing the movement to empower them to do the right
thing. conservatives don't forget that, they don't go home after election day, they never go home. we have to have that same attitude. >> eric schneider spokesman, cochair of the fraud task force, congratulations today and thanks for helping us explain it to the country. thank you, rachel. >> if you like a really good, seriously good and funny political speech about civil right, stick around for the best new thing in the world tonight, that's coming up.
the worst of political speechifying usually lacks heart. my opponent is a danger to democracy. we'll take the country back. this is the most important election in all of human history. you hear these things repeated you wonder if they believe the words they are saying or just did a focus group in a mall next to annie's pretzels. occasionally a politician gives a speech with feeling. a speech not only effective for the political point at hand, but that kind of restores your faith in political speechifying in general. the best new thing in the world was that kind of speech about civil rights. i don't want to oversell it but i think you will be glad you heard it.
♪ home was an airport lounge and an ipad ♪ ♪ made sure his credit score did not go bad ♪ ♪ with a free-credit-score-dot-com ♪ ♪ app that he had ♪ downloaded it in the himalayas ♪ ♪ while meditating like a true playa ♪ ♪ now when he's surfing down in chile'a ♪ ♪ he can see when his score is in danger ♪ ♪ if you're a mobile type on the go ♪ ♪ i suggest you take a tip from my bro ♪ ♪ and download the app that lets you know ♪ ♪ at free-credit-score-dot-com now let's go. ♪ vo: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com™.
it lasted three years, from 1950 to 1953. who won? who won the korean war? trick question. it still is going on. the korean war stopped because of a cease fire. a cease fire is a temporary thing, but the one in korea is still in effect 59 years later. even though the fighting stopped in 1953. over the course of the year, 1953 five different parades, two for commanding generals, one for the first troops home, one for wounded vets, one for a war hero pow, they even held another one the following year in 1954 when another infantry division got home. parade to mark the end of the korean war or at least to mark the war that had had the cease fire. at least to welcome home the men and women who fought there. but this is interesting. in 1991 we decided to do it again.
decided to make sure that 38 years later as the korean war got talked about less and less, it was overshadowed by the war before it, world war ii and viet nam, we waed to make sure korean war vets they and their war were not forgotten. when you look back at contemporaneous coverage from the time part of the impetus was doing it very late was still a good thing to do. we realized that as a nation in 1985, when 10 years after the end of the viet nam war, the country finally got around to welcoming home viet nam veterans. the largest parade in new york city's history happened. it was a huge deal for a country that had at times conflated our feelings about the war and the people who fought the war. universally every headline about
the event noted that it was late. it was good to be doing it but it was bad it was years and years late. interestingly in this ap story from that day in 191985, donal trump is cited for having to make a donation that was held in conjunction with the 10 years late parade. told the associated press that it's a great evening, i only wish it could have taken place ten years ago. the slogan of the parade in new york for viet nam veterans in the 80s, the slogan was "it's time" after that new york parade, after new york did that for viet nam veterans and the viet nam war in 1985, other cities did. in 1986, chicago did one. in chicago, 200,000 veterans marched over 300,000 people watching. houston did it the year after that. more than a deck ald after the war ended. in all these cases the same sentiment, we wait toad long, we
waited too long, why didn't we do this a decade before. still now, four decades after viet nam we're still la menting we waited too long to thank troops that fought there. when the unpopular viet nam war ended in the 1970s, we did not welcome them home right then. we waited too long. one of the people who still is saying that, who says he is still lamenting that 40 years after the end of the war is michael bloomberg. >> i thought one of the sad things when the viet nam vets came back we didn't treat them the way they deserved to be treated. it was conscription. they went over, some didn't come back to protect the freedoms we have, you can say whether you are knee favor or against the war, nobody is in favor of war, but whether you think it's necessary or not is a better way to phrase it our vets deserve the respect and help when they
get back that i always thought america -- that is what it's about. >> the city of st. louis, missouri did not wait to get permission to give respect and help to veterans back from the iraq war, now that the iraq war has ended. they went ahead and did it, went off great, 100,000 people turned out. when it came time to present a proclamation of support to iraq veterans from the city of st. louis, that proclamation was presented by charlie dooley, the county executive of st. louis and a viet nam veteran. joining us is charlie a. dooley, many thanks for your time. >> thank you for having me. >> the decision to hold a parade to end the iraq war in st. louis didn't start with the city or county. it started with a couple of concerned citizens. but the city did end up supporting it. you ended up supporting it very visibly. do you think that it was a success?
>> it was a great day. >> was there any down side in what you did in st. louis, any hidden pitfalls or anything to worry about, any negative consequences that might be cautionary for any other cities that are considering doing this? >> well, from the st. louis perspective, on such a short notice, we were concerned whether there will be a crowd. there was a crowd, 100,000 people. 20,000 participants, 83 floats. it was a great success. >> do you think are lessons from how people who fought in vietnam were received upon coming home? are there lessons from that era concerning us? >> i think that the lesson is regardless of how you feel about a particular conflict, the united states is participating
in, these are our veterans, our soldiers, our men and women fighting for freedom that we believe in. and we should always welcome them home. >> was there a cost, do you think, to vietnam veterans to the nation in terms of healing after the great divide over that war in this country? was there a cost to waiting so long to recognize vietnam veterans after you all came home from there? >> yes, that was a cost. for a long time, i felt disappointed that we wasn't welcomed home. there was an emptiness that i felt that i loved this country. i thought when i came home in 1967 from vietnam, no one was there to greet me and tell me job well done. >> did it make a difference ten years later cities around the country changed that and decided that even though it was going to be late, they were still going to do it. would that make a difference to you as a veteran? >> i think it did make a great difference. quite frankly, the iraq war we
had in st. louis, i felt just as much a part of that as those that participated in new york in 1985. i felt vindicated. i felt welcomed. i waved my hand. i just felt good about it. >> a lot of veterans groups, even korean veterans groups, i watched the parade live streaming from the nbc affiliate there. and one of the things i noticed that i didn't expect was to see a lot of groups of older veterans, veterans of previous conflicts who were there alongside the iraq vets being recognized the same thing. it was striking to see. >> there's no question about it. a lot of world war ii vets were there, korean vets were there. every time i saw one of the individuals, i made it my business to make sure i shook their hand and thanked them for their service. >> sir, one last question for you. i realize you're the county executive of st. louis. and you don't have jurisdiction in new york city. but from your perspective, from your experience, what do you think about new york city's
decision to essentially take the pentagon advice, the pentagon's advice, not the veterans groups, but the pentagon's advice that they should wait and not do a parade now for the iraq war even though the iraq war ended? >> i have a great respect for our government and for the pentagon. but i also have a great respect for our veterans. it is for our veterans. it's the right thing to do. and the time to do it is now. >> st. louis county executive charlie dooly, veteran of the vietnam war, thank you for your time tonight, sir. i've been looking forward to the chance to talk to you about this. i'm grateful for it. >> thanks for having me, rachael. >> thanks. >> still ahead on "the last word" there is a draw dropping investigation about guns, guns being sold with no background checks at all and it's apparently perfectly legal. essential viewing. and here florists, indicatorers, djs, your stimulus has arrived.
counterparts in washington voting to recognize marriage rights for same sex couples in the state of washington. if governor christine signs the law next week as expected to, washington state will become the seventh state where same-sex marriage is legal in the united states. it's also legal in the district of colombia. now anti-gay groups say they will fight it still in washington state and, of course, it's not signed. the deal is not done until it is signed, sealed and delivered. there is still more of the story to tell about the process in washington state. but, the best new thing in the world today is this raw demonstration of how changes like this always happen. this portrait from one state representative in washington of how change happens, not in groups, not for states, but person by person. life by life.
this is state representative maureen walsh. she is a republican representing washington's 16th district. she came to this from a very personal place as somebody who has been married but who then lost her husband. listen.
>> you know, i was married for 23 years to the love of my life. and he died six years ago. and, you know, i'm a lonely old widow right now. i'm 51 years old looking for a boyfriend, not having much whether you can that. and, yet, when i think of my husband and i think of all the wonderful years we have and the wonderful fringe benefit of having three beautiful children, i don't miss the sex, you know? to me, that's kind of what this boils down to. i don't miss that. i mean, i certainly miss it, but i don't -- it's not
-- it's certainly not the aspect of that relationship that incredible bond that i had with that human being that i really, really genuinely wish i still had.
and so i just -- i think to myself how could i deny anyone the right to have that incredible bond with another individual in life? to me, it seems almost cruel. someone made the comment this is not about equality. well, yes, it is about equality. and why in the world would we not allow those equal rights for individuals who truly were committed to one another in life to be able to show that by way of a marriage? my daughter came out of the closet a couple years ago. and you know what? i thought i was going to agonize about that. nothing's different. she's still a fabulous human being and she's met a person she loves very much. and some day, by god, i want to throw a wedding for that kid. and i hope that's exactly what i can do.
i hope she will not feel like a second class citizen involved in something called a domestic partnership with frankly sounds luke a merry maids franchise to me. thank you, mr. speaker. that's all i want to say. and thank you for the civil wonderful debate today. it's been great. >> yes, i would agree. it has been great. that's republican state representative mao republican wall frsh washington state's 16th district. that story she told about her own path, her own making up her own mind on this issue is part of why washington state is about to recognize same-sex marriage rights. christine gregoire had previously not been in favor it. she held a press conference to announce she had a change of heart. and now the state is on the path to recognizing them. with that speech from maureen walsh after all the really bad post primary speeches we've been suffering through the past couple weeks that, speech from her ne