tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC May 10, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PDT
that's what's really disturbing. >> cecile richards, great to have you with us tonight. thanks so much. >> thanks for having me. >> you bet. that's "the ed show." i'm ed schultz. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> thanks, ed. today was an historic day in civil rights in this country. >> i've always been adamant that gay and lesbian americans should be treated fairly and equally. and i was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, you know, the word "marriage" was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs, and so forth. at a certain point, i've just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that i think same-sex couples should be able to get married. >> president obama speaking today with robin roberts of abc, making remarks that were both
highly anticipated and that nobody was quite sure he was going to say, until he actually said them. there has been no ambiguity about whether or not this administration supports the advancement of gay rights as a matter of policy. but there has been uncertainty about whether the president would ever say what he said today. whether the president would ever say that he personally supports same-sex couples being allowed to get married. it would mean if your town had an ordinance that said you can't discriminate against gay people, your town could be sued by people who want to discriminate against gay people, asserting that it is their right to do so. it's legislation to overtly advance the right to discriminate against gay people, and to get rid of anything that might shield gay people from discrimination.
this thing passed by nearly 3 to 1 in the kansas house. if it passes the senate, my guess is that kansas republican governor sam brownback will sign it with a very, very pious smile on his face. legislation like this is a thing for republicans now. the same sort of bill was introduced in colorado this year by republicans in the legislature there. ultimately, they pulled it, but the folks behind it say that they will bring it back soon. in colorado yesterday, the republican speaker of the house killed 30 different bills last night, all at once. bills covering everything from water infrastructure to something to set the standard for driving while stoned. 30 bills, all of them set to be moved at the end of the legislative session in colorado, all killed in one fell swoop, in order to stop a civil unions bill for same-sex couples in colorado from going to the floor, where there was a threat that it might have passed. so there was almost progress for gay couples in colorado, from third class citizenship, to second class citizenship yesterday, but the republican speaker of the house took a
stand and stopped that progress, killing 30 other pieces of legislation in the process. close one. if you follow the issue of gay rights in american public policy, you know that public opinion has been shifting on this subject. support for same-sex marriage rights in polling has been going up and up and up, but public opinions shifting on this issue has not affected most republican politicians. in fact, the most visible republican politicians in this country have become more anti-gay over time. >> you gave an answer i thought was really interesting in the third debate. bob schieffer asked you if you thought homosexuals were born that way or became that way. >> yeah. >> and you said you didn't know. >> right, i don't. >> so the possibility -- it's a nature/nurture argument. so the possibility exists in your mind that it could be nature? >> sure. >> so how can we deny them rights in any way to a civil union that would give them the same economic rights or health rights or other things? >> well, i -- i -- i don't think we should deny people rights to
a civil union, a legal arrangement if that's what a state chooses to do so. >> that was george w. bush in 2004 saying that he was in favor of civil unions for same-sex couples. 2004, the last republican president. the current republican nominee for president is against that. >> i think people have differing views on marriage and i respect people's different views. i'm in favor of traditional marriage, between a man and a woman. and i don't favor civil union or gay marriage. >> we think of the country as getting less anne-gay over time, but for the top tier of republican politicians, they are getting more anti-gay over time. even mitt romney personally is getting more anti-gay over time. when he ran for the united states senate in 1994, this is him on the cover of the boston gay magazine, gay newspaper, sorry. when he ran for senate, he famously promised that he would run to the left of ted kennedy on gay rights issue. he said he would make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. now that he's further along in his career and the de facto republican nominee for
president, not only is he not trying to mainstream gay and lesbian equality, he is actively working against it. he's promising to fight it. he's pledging to pursue an amendment to the united states constitution to ban marriage rights for same-sex couples. to impose that ban federally, no matter what individual states want. when the romney campaign appointed an openly gay spokesman recently, he was hounded out of the job on the basis of the fact that he was gay. >> personnel is policy. when governor romney picked somebody who's an active homosexual and puts him in a prominent position, he's sending a shout-out to the lobby. >> when attacks on that spokesman forced him to quit, mitt romney never said a word to those anti-gay critics. that led even that guy you just saw there, brian fisher, to worry that maybe mitt romney is a wimp on this issue. >> if mitt romney can be pushed around, intimidated, coerced, coopted by a conservative radio
talk show host in middle america, how is he going to stand up to the chinese? how is he going to stand up to putin? how is is he going to stand up to north korea if he can be pushed around by a yokel like me. >> this past november when former vice president dick cheney was lobbying in maryland for maryland to passage same-sex marriage rights, the current candidate mitt romney campaigning against the gays. >> we fought hard and prevented massachusetts from becoming the las vegas of gay marriage. >> when a federal court in california ruled in favor of marriage for same-sex couples on the prop 8 case earlier this year, mitt romney jumped in to make clear he was on the anti-gay side of that. he declared himself a combatant on the war on gay rights. he said, "today unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of california who voted to protect traditional marriage. this decision does not end this fight."
see, it's a fight and he's a combatant in that fight against gay rights. even when he's not making public statements and he's just doing something like doling out money, this year's republican nominee has been giving money fighting against gay rights. including groups who say they know how to cure you from being gay. mitt romney's campaign has been funding those groups. this is what it's like for republican politics. yesterday the republican speaker of the house gave over statutory to a guy who said that aids is a punishment for homosexuality. >> it's the fastest self-mutating virus known to mankind. every time they just about get a vaccine, it transmutes into something new and they have to start over again. that goes to what god says,
you're going to bear on your body the consequences of this homosexual behavior. >> the consequences of your homosexual behavior. yesterday the republican speaker of the house john boehner invited that guy to use your room, statutory hall, in the u.s. capitol, for some type of publicity stunt. regardless for the public opinion polling on this issue, the elected officials of the republican party in 2012 are more anti-gay than they have been in my lifetime, and they have been anti-gay for a really long time. >> today i call upon the kopg to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our constitution,
defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman, as husband and wife. marriage can not be severed from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. >> notice the date there, right? that was president george w. bush, february 2004, running for re-election, against these advances in gay rights that threaten civilization, that threaten to bring down the nation. in 2004, that year, the republican party supported ballot initiatives in 11 states banning gay rights. that not only had the effect of materially hurting gay people all over the country, but they also hoped it would drive up turnout of voters motivated by anti-gay prejudice. so come for the chance to hurt your gay neighbor, stay for the re-electing of george w. bush. but at the same time that george w. bush was standing there in the roosevelt room, pledging the power of the presidency and a change to the u.s. constitution to stop these terrifying gay
people who were coming to destroy our civilization, the bush administration was also leaking word that personally, george w. bush was actually totally cool with gay people. mr. bush's friends say that the president is quite comfortable with gays. the president's wife, quoted by "the new york times," saying that of course she and the president had gay friends. the white house also apparently leaking a story about mr. bush being not at all offensive towards a former yale classmate that was transgender. the idea was that we were all supposed to be assured that even though the president was trying actively as a politician with his power as president to make gay people's lives harder in this country, to stop the advancement of gay rights and to roll it back, where he could, we're supposed to feel personally assured by the fact that personally he is all right with gay people. this is a constant in american anti-gay politics. even just in the career of george w. bush. this is from that -- i want to read -- this is from the lewiston idaho morning tribune, from august 1999, when george w. bush was running for president for the first time. listen to this.
"george w. bush, for example, has said he opposes allowing gay couples adopt children. i believe children ought to be adopted in families with a woman and a man who are married, the texas governor said months ago. but after he said that, governor bush told a gay legislator he doesn't mean that personally. texas state represent glen maxie, the state's only openly gay legislator, says that last april, bush talked to him during a visit to the house chamber. he says, glen, i value you as a person and i value you as a human being and i want you to know that what i said publicly about gay people does not pertain to you personally." but to the extent that i can take away your rights and destroy your family, i'm going to do everything in my power to do that. with ronald reagan, it was sort of the same thing. at a time that republicans were all but applauding the deaths of tens of thousands of americans from aids, on the idea that aids was god's punishment for homosexuality, and therefore
should be sort of welcomed as it killed lots of americans, in the midst of that environment in the republican party at the time, ronald reagan as president did nothing to stop the aids epidemic and could not bring himself to even say the word "aids" in public until seven years into his presidency, at which point tens of thousands of americans had already been killed by aids. but, but, apparently, personally, he was really nice about gay people. do you care? they think you'll care. so president reagan's daughter publishes a piece in "time" magazine talking about how she watched a movie in the white house with her father when he was president and he explained to her while they were walking the movie that rock hudson was gay, and he said that, quote, in the same tone that he would be telling me about people with different-colored eyes. does that make you feel better or worse about tens of thousands of dead americans and the president not saying a word about it? in the case of the clinton administration, as president, he made lots of gay appointments. we're told he had very pro-gay intentions, which may make you
feel great. but in policy, the gay rights legacy of the bill clinton administration is the defense of marriage ask and don't ask, don't tell. awesome. does the president's personal feeling about gay people make that policy legacy any better or worse? not substantively. but the connection between personal beliefs and the wielding of political power is a very, very thin connection on this issue. so when george w. bush writes on page 69 of his memoir, "decision points," when he pats himself on the back for telling vice president dick cheney, that, quote, i could not careless less about the sexual orientation of dick cheney's daughter, mary. when he pats himself on the back about that, about how personally tolerant he is, that does not make me feel better about president george w. bush's record, as a campaigner who got re-elected in part about making gay people's lives more miserable. it does not make me feel better. it also makes me feel more disgusted about that. not everybody feels the same way about this. but personally, i don't much care about a politician's personal beliefs.
i care about whether a politician hurts people in their job as a politician. whether you are using your power to hurt people is the relevant thing. not how you feel about it privately while you're doing that. that's always been my belief on it, personally. the flip side to that, as a matter of principle, is what's going on in the barack obama administration. the barack obama administration has been very, very, very pro-gay rights. they have pursued at every level policies to improve the lives of gay americans and to further gay rights. it's not just repealing don't ask, don't tell. it's expanding federal benefits for the same-sex partners of people who work in the executive branch. it's signing the hate crimes act into law. it's clearing the way for hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. it's lifting the travel and immigration band for people living with hiv. it's ordering the federal housing authority to not can consider the sexual orientation of people who apply for housing
loans. it's expanding the census, even, to make sure that people in same-sex relationships get counted. it's directing u.s. agencies who work with foreign countries to ensure that our humanitarian and diplomatic efforts abroad take into accounts the rights of gay and lesbian people in those other countries. it's supporting states that are trying to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. the administration did not always do that. they didn't, for example, do that before the vote on same-sex marriage rights in new york state. but they do that now. they did that before the vote that was lost yesterday in north carolina. it's taking the huge step of refusing to defend the constitutionality of bill clinton's gay rights disaster in the defense of marriage act. if you are in favor of gay rights, the barack obama administration has been great on the issue of gay rights. while before today, never saying what the president's personal view is on same-sex couples getting married. we treat presidents like they're celebrities. we are all curious about all of these personal things about them, including who their friends are and what they like in a person, what their
prejudices might be. but ultimately, what presidents do is they wield political power. and even before today, that legacy of the first term of the barack obama presidency was already clear. today he added to that. he added icing to that. the cake was already baked. the legacy was already secured by his actions as president. by what his administration had done. the legacy was already secured before he took this extra step today. this was something extra. this was something not necessary to secure his legacy here. this was above and beyond. and it is not without risk. and now having said these words publicly that no president has ever said before, now we get to see how this changes the country. democratic congressman barney frank of massachusetts joins us next. ♪ ♪ ♪ pop goes the world ♪ it goes something like this ♪ everybody here is a friend of mine ♪ ♪ everybody, tell me, have you heard? ♪ ♪ pop goes the world ♪ pop goes the world
it's interesting. some of this is also generational. you know, when i go to college campuses, sometimes i talk to college republicans who think that i have terrible policies on the economy or on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality, or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. >> in an interview with "good morning america's" robin roberts, today president obama announced his personal support for the rights of same-sex couples to get married. the president signaling in that interview that equality for gay americans seems inevitable. that at least with the youth vote, he may not lose much political ground, by stating his personal convictions in favor of equality now, no matter who else it might alienate.
joining us now for the interview is congressman barney frank of massachusetts, the first person to make the decision to come out while serving in the united states congress. congressman frank, thanks very much for being here. it's nice to see you. >> thank you, rachel. i'm about to have my 25th anniversary of my volunteering that i was gay to the "boston globe." it's memorial day of 1987. >> wow, 25. 25 years ago, could you have imagined a sitting u.s. president of either party coming out and saying that he believe that you and other gay americans should have the right to get married? >> no, and i didn't figure at that point that i would be one of those who would be doing it within a couple months. >> i actually wondered about that. i know that you have plans, you're going to be retiring, you're not running for re-election, but before you leave congress, you and your partner, jim, have announced that you're going to be married. you are going to be a married member of the united states congress, with a same-sex partner. i wondered if today's announcement changed the seating list for the ceremony.
>> no, i admire the president. i deeply respect him. but i don't want my guests to have to go through the metal detector. you know, the secret service does a great job of protecting ft. but while they are protecting the president, they pretty much disrupt everybody's lives around them. so i want the wedding to be celebratory, not militaryized. >> i hear you. on this issue of, i guess, the president's personal views versus what the president has pursued on policies, this has been a very pro-gay rights administration. the president never before today had said that he personally endorsed the idea of gay marriage rights. you'd said a couple of weeks ago that you thought it was a problem that he hadn't personally said anything about it. why was it a problem and has he solved that problem now? >> yes, he has. it was a problem, frankly, because of the referenda. in terms of public policy, as you had pointed out, the president had already taken the position that was relevant from policy.
namely, but oppoing doma, by saying that he would not carry out the unconstitutional mandate that we not get the same benefits as anybody else. there is no general federal marriage policy. so, again, in public policy, he did just the right thing. but as you know, we have several referenda coming. and there has been some effort within the african-american community to kind of say, oh, well, family stability is important. these people are trying to undermine it. in the california referenda in 2008, people were quoting barack obama's opposition at that point to same-sex marriage, in literature aimed at the black community. we have a very important referendum coming up this year in the state of maryland, where the legislature got this, governor o'malley took the lead, and same-sex marriage was approved. i was fearing that you would see people who were trying not to allow this to go forward, invoking president obama in the referendum. now they won't be able to do that. plus, that's it's also important what the president says.
and i think with regard to bill clinton, it was important that he was saying 15 years ago, that he was supportive of gay rights, even if the congress wouldn't g along. and i do think there are two areas that bill clinton deserves credit. using his executive power. because we couldn't deal with the congress at that time. he revoked a 40-year-old policy that said that those of us who are gay or lesbian couldn't get security clearance. that was a serious problem for people, not just going to work for the government, but working for businesses that worked for the government. and he abolished that. secondly, and in terms of the international, he took the first step. if you were gay, overseas, and you were being persecuted, you were eligible for asylum. those were two very powerful things that were not just personal expressions. but beyond that, it is important that the president is a figure that people respect and when the president speaks out, it moves -- we're moving in the right
direction anyway. it moves us a little further. >> in terms of that last point, about how it moves -- how it moves the country for the president to have made a personal statement about this, i can absolutely see your point on the negative side of him not saying anything. that him being against gay rights could be used against gay rights, particularly by other constituencies that might otherwise support it. are there people who aren't in favor of same-sex marriage rights now who will be, because president obama is? will he attract anybody to the position? >> no, that's a very good point. as a matter of fact, that's why he won't have any political impact, i believe, in terms of the election, if your view on whether or not we have the right to marry helps determine your vote in a significant way, if you were against it, you were already against barack obama because of what he did the doma. if you were for it, you were for barack obama. but it has an impact, first of all, there will be some people who will be more emboldened to speak out now. you know, this is a society where people influence each other.
and when the president says that there'll be people, it probably won't make any difference in manhattan, los angeles, came bridge, massachusetts, but in parts of the country where people are still feeling a little intimidated, morally and culturally, having the president on their side will be very helpful. so these things don't operate in a one-to-one fashion. and it isn't necessarily just about marriage. i think it is helpful. again, we're on the move. he's absolutely right about the generational issue. and you know, some generational issues, people think one way at 25 and they may think differently at 50. in this situation, on lbgt rights, every indication we have is that people aren't prejudiced at 25 aren't going to become prejudiced later. >> congressman barney frank of massachusetts, thanks for being here tonight. i know we're lucky to have you tonight. thank you. >> thank you, rachel. >> so, yeah, that did happen. and now the political backlash begins or not. we'll talking about that next.
on the night that barack obama was elected president in 2008, there was a lot of celebrating. obviously, people who voted for john mccain and sarah palin were not happy and they were probably not among those dancing in the streets, but there was, in fact, dancing in the streets. it was democrats and independents who supported obama/biden. it was the people in the middle who were excited by the historic national achievement of having a first black president in this country. maybe also people excited by the end of the george w. bush years. there was celebrating. on election night in 2008, in a liberal city like san francisco, there was definitely celebrating that election night, but there was also something else. >> i believe we've got some pictures out of san francisco as well. some of the celebration pouring out in the castro district of the city. as it's known. a place near and dear to your heart. >> certainly me, having written for the papers out there all
those years. >> that may not all be celebration, if it's in the castro and we haven't got the prop 8. >> prop 8. on the same night that barack obama was voted president, california voted to take away existing marriage rights from same-sex couples. the same electorate that gave california to barack obama over john mccain by a 24-point margin, voted by more than four points to take away existing gay couple's marriage rights. and from that perspective, it sounds like that was a surprising vote, but that's perfectly in keeping with the track record with what happens when you take a majority vote on this type of minority rights. after last night's vote against marriage equality in north carolina, the track record for state ride referenda on gay rights is 1 in 33. so in the past 15 years, anti-gay forces have put 34 gay rights and 33 time it has against gay rights. the some time it has not been for a ban on gay people's right
was one vote in arizona in 2008, but arizona remedied that, thank you very much, by taking another anti-gay right vote in 2008 in which they flipped. in conservative states, in middle of the road states, in liberal states. every time there is a statewide vote on same-sex marriage rights, the majority votes to deny those rights. and at the same time, people talking to public opinion pollsters are increasingly saying that they support same-sex marriage rights. in the gallup poll in 2009, the proportion of americans say they supported same-sex marriage rights was 40%. the next year, 2010, support went from 40 to 44%. the next year, 2011, support went from 44 to 53%. but rising poll number in terms of marriage rights has not translated into statewide votes to support those rights, not anywhere in the country, not even now in 2012. not last night in north carolina. even before his statement today
that he personally now supports the right of same-sex couples to get married, president obama had come out against that north carolina marriage ban that passed last night. he also said he is against the marriage ban that's going to be on the ballot in minnesota in november. in new jersey right now, marriage would be legal for same-sex couples under legislation passed by the new jersey house and senate earlier this year, but that legislation was vetoed by new jersey governor chris christie. he has tried to make himself not seem too anti-gay for having vetoed marriage rights for new jersey, that would exist without his veto. he says that, frankly, he thinks it's just better to put things like this up to a statewide vote, as a general principle. >> the fact of the matter is that i think people would have been happy to have a referendum, you know, on civil rights, rather than fighting and dying in the streets, in the south. >> think about that for a second. instead of protecting african-american civil rights in
the south, as rights, right? rights, right? we should have just put them up for a majority vote. what could possibly go wrong? how would that vote have turned out in the segregated south? that's the argument chris christie made for why he vetoed same-sex marriage rights that passed the legislature in new jersey. this was the response to chris christie from the mayor of new jersey's largest city. >> dear god, we should not be putting civil rights issues to a popular vote, to be subject to the sentiments, the passions of the day. no minority should have their rights subject to the passions and sentiments of the majority. this is a fundamental bedrock of what our nation stands for. and i get very concerned that we have created in our state and we refuse to address and call it like it is, that we've created a second class citizen in our state. that's what we have in america
right now. we have two classes of citizens. jackie robinson said the right of every american to first class citizenship is the most important issue of our time. let's stop -- let's stop the ruse. we have two types of citizens right now in our state. citizens like me, who if i choose to marry somebody, i can marry somebody from a different country, they have a right to a united states citizenship. i talked to somebody last night, their spouse is looking to be deported. their spouse is looking to be deported. i've got a right, people against taxes, that if i die, i'm married, this first class citizenship that i have says that my estate taxes, my wife will get to avoid those estate taxes. the second class citizens in our country don't have those rights. there's over a thousand federal laws that create different classes of american citizenship. because we're not treating everybody equally under the law. i read the 14th amendment clearly.
it talks about equal protection under the laws. >> and thank god jackie robinson >> and thank god jackie robinson wasn't a popular vote, whether he should join and be a professional baseball player. and so to me, this is infuriating. that we are still in the 21st century, and we haven't created equality under the law. so i will be fundamentally in the fiber of my being, supportive of equal citizenship for all people under this country. because i know at the end of the day, i would not be here, my family wouldn't have been able to put food on the table for me, if it wasn't for that idea in america. i'm tired and exhausted that we have a country who is able to
overcome women having a position in this country, blacks having a second class citizen in this country, latinos have a second class citizen in this country blacks and whites who want to marry having a second class citizenry in this country. it's about time we create a first class citizenry for every american, this should not be a popular vote. this should be something we do now. to me it's ridiculous and offensive that we're still having this debate. it should have been done months if not years ago. >> on the day that president obama announced that he, too, believes that same-sex couples should have the right to marry in this country, we are joined now by newark mayor, cory booker. mr. mayor, thank you for being here. >> it's very, very good to see you. >> it's a little weird to make you sit there and look at three minutes of yourself. >> it's also weird to hear that, as you called me many other things. >> i called you, hey, you, for a long part of our adulthood. cory, you were publicly here on
this issue a long time before the president said he agreed today. >> he's done a lot for equality, but to have barack obama, the president of the united states, to stand on the public stage and say, once and for all, i believe in equality of all citizens, i think, it has a very powerful symbolic effect, i think it puts the light on many people, democrats and republicans, who have the same personal sentiments, but haven't had the courage to come forward and say it, and i think that there are kids in my city today who finally, image this, feel validated by their president. i am an equal citizen in your eyes as well. and to me, that's an historic thing, when a president comes out and says, i believe in equality. i think it's important we're the nation that we say we are. >> in terms of the symbolic value here, one of the things that has always made me crazy on
this subject, and i talked about ate the top of the show a little bit, is the idea that the politicians, particularly president who is pursue an anti-gay policy agenda, who achieve political power and wield it to hurt gay people, then want to be seen as still getting credit for the symbolic value of them being personally nice to gay people, even when they're wielding power to hurt us. >> right. >> this is the opposite, right? this is somebody who has used the symbolic value to it of his personal stance. >> first of all, there's no difference to me than somebody saying, in a time of segregation, oh, i support segregation laws, oh, but i have a black friend or somebody that works for me. to me, there's a despicable nature of that, when you're denying the worth and dignity of an individual, but you're saying, hey, i like you, i have a friend or a family member, or what have you. that's ridiculous. so in this case with barack obama, i respect the fact that he struggled with his conscience. and i actually don't see for those of us who have surrendered to cynicism about politics in
general, i don't see a political advantage to this. i see a guy who was wrestling with this in his heart and the totality of his personal experiences, the totality of his personal experiences, but i still give him a tremendous amount of credit for crossing that line and finally calling it like it is, in the midst of a very different election. >> barney frank said moments ago that he doesn't think there was a political downside to the president on this, that anybody who was going to disagree with him -- >> why would karl rove go out in the 2004 elections and insidiously, and in a great political, with great political machination, get the gay right votes on many different ballots, because he knew it would excite and awaken just on this issue. i think there will be many people with that kind of hate in their heart that will come out and say that we're not going to, we're not for gay and lesbian and bigender and transsexual people. and i see that in my own city. i'll never forget a moment i had before a polling place, where a pastor came to me and was so upset in the 2004 elections, and
said, i will not vote for somebody who supports gay marriage. i had to say, first of all, the nick presidential nominee does not support gay marriage, but i can't believe this is your singular issue that you're voting on. people want to keep this election to the edge issues, that don't unify our country, that drive people apart. and i think it is playing into the hands, if you think to think of the political machinations of the people that want to portray this election in that way. that said, to me, i don't care about the politics of it all. when are we going to be a nation, the documents of our nation, that all people are created equal? that we have equal protection under the law? why are we leaving gay and lesbian americans aside for a second class citizenship?
i cannot accept that, especially as an american that has benefitted so much. and we keep saying this is about gay rights, but to me that's not the framing i would use at all. this is about equal rights. >> yeah. >> this is about the -- the civil rights movement was not ability black rights, the suffrage movement was not about women's rights, it's about the rights of americans to be equal under the law, plain and simple. and i understand the passions that come from a religious perspective. you know, that's why we've taken pains to separate church and state. when it comes to the laws of this country, people don't understand the agony and the anguish it causes the families to be -- from social security, to veterans affairs, to immigration, to tax law to hit
so many barriers and the effects it has on people's lives. and then just the simple idea that i have teenagers in my city that feel like that they're worth, that they're dignity is denied them in this nation that views them as unequal, and inferior. and that to me is so counter as to what we stand as as a nation. they are important and they have your place. but when it comes to the government of the united states, to discriminate in this manner should be unacceptable to everyone. >> that idea of a single class of citizenship being a universal goal. >> and the irony of this is based just on who you love, based on love. and that to me is unacceptable. >> love you, man. good to see you. >> you too. >> all right, mayor cory booker of newark, new jersey. and another old pal of mine is coming up. [ man ] i think this is a good time to tell you:
i can call you "mom," right? i know we haven't known each other very long, but you seem like a real keeper. you're not perfect. but you're trying. anyway, i want you to know how much i appreciate you. you know, right? how much i love you. you're doing okay, mom. use to define the modern republican party, whether you like republicans, whether you don't like republicans, whether you are a republican or you wouldn't be caught dead in the grand old party, there are a lot of phrases you could use to define what the republican party is like right now. is the phrase "extraordinarily pro-woman" one of those phrases? >> extraordinarily pro-woman. >> extraordinarily pro-woman. the republican party? that's news. that's ahead. [ male announcer ] can febreze set & refresh make even this place smell fresh?
wilderness. congratulations on the book, it's really, really funny, very touching. >> you know what? thanks. >> you didn't tell the dark side of air america. you made is sound like it was meaningful -- you took the deep and meaningful lessons and none of the cheap shots you could have taken, which i'm not sure i could have done. >> here is the thing. as we lived through the crazy part of air america, the one part that rose out of it, everyone knows the story, saw the documentary and know these people from guam decided to sign on with, which was bizarre. sure, this sounds like a pretty good idea. we'll give up our careers and go to guam.
when it all started falling apart, we banded together. nobody quit, people who had money helped pay the other people. we made these crazy comedy bits. we had a riot and built relationships that were really important. >> yeah. >> and we especially on the radio, had a darn good time. >> it's true. and the legacy ultimately is what everybody has done since then, and it was that liberals ought to be in the media an overt liberal voice in the media and that has borne some fruit in the world. >> it has borne fruit and we were right. the problems with air america wasn't that there wasn't a butt load of talent if you will. >> technical term. >> you know, when i'm on a news network and i thought butt load was appropriate. starting in the morning with you and mark and then jeanine and sam and they all went on to go do amazing things. and you a senator.
my work is done. see you later. >> one of the things you write about a lot in "lizz free or die" your evolving politics about abortion rights. ing about having an abortion, your family's dealing with it or not dealing with it. and your activism in as an adult. i wonder if you have an explanation for why the anti abortion republican party has gone so hog wild in the last couple of years. think have always been anti abortion rights, but the last couple of years have been nuts in terms of anti abortion politics. why is that? >> really nuts. i think when women have been moving further and further to demand their place at the table and threatened in obvious power structure that all of a sudden has to prove itself like we have had to for so many years, i think it's about control and i think it's incredibly frightening.
there are a couple of states that it's illegal to exfoliate at this point. i don't know, but the laws keep coming down the pipe. >> don't you dare -- >> don't you dare use a loofah, missy. some of the laws, the more track onnian you get ian dcaconian you get, to me being a teen where i was very much alone in oklahoma. they lump us together as though we were one big uterus and your life and your needs are very different than my life and my needs, and i have known from a young girl that i would not be a good mom. i just don't have that thing. i have other goals, other drives, other needs, and the thing that i think is sort of the untold scary part of all of this, and i hope we talk about that more, the less access we have to health care, the less access that women have choices to follow their destiny and that's the part i feel so incredibly strongly about. and i tell my story, because
it's not an extraordinary one. >> that's the thing about the book, self-determination. being raised to be a kid who knew who you wanted to be. it being incredibly unpopular from the moment you told the priest that you wanted to be an altar boy. but self-determination is sort of your listen. know who you are, fight to get it, and that's the most rewarding thing you can do with it. >> i have this anvil rule. i can't lift an anvil, so i would never apply for a job to like move -- pullout couches, for example, i can't lift them some of if i wanted to try something that wasn't going to harm me and didn't involve the metaphoric anvil lifting, why shouldn't i be able to? and i think that's why i was so drawn to the gay community and people from color. skin doesn't prevent you from lifting an anvil, and we prevent people from doing things because of the color of their skin. why? why are we so focused on something that makes them happy? i never understood that.
even in my tiny little pea brain. >> the book is incredibly irreverent, constantly laugh out loud, deep story about that self-determination idea which is really important. thanks, man. >> thanks, man. >> is it inappropriate to hug and you say muah? >> you have to wait until we have a smaller table. lizz free or die. a great title, a great book. really, really funny and important. we'll be right back. [ male [ female announcer ] with swiffer wet cleaning better doesn't have to take longer. i'm done. i'm gonna...use these. ♪ give me just a little more time ♪ [ female announcer ] unlike mops, swiffer can maneuver into tight spaces and its wet mopping cloths can clean better in half the time.
mom? ♪ ahhhh! ahhhh! no it's mommy! [ female announcer ] swiffer. better clean in half the time. or your money back. ♪ >> announcer: meet mary. she loves to shop online with her debit card, and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts and stole her hard-earned money. now meet jack. after 40 years, he finally saved enough to enjoy retirement. angie, the waitress at jack's favorite diner, is also enjoying his retirement. with just a little information, she's opened up a credit line, draining the equity in jack's home. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft, and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. see, ordinary credit monitoring services tell you after your identity has been stolen. they may take up to 60 days to alert you-- too late for jack.
lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified in time to help stop it. if jack had lifelock's 24/7 proactive protection, he could have been alerted by phone or e-mail as soon as they noticed an attack on their network, before it was too late. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one works harder to protect you than lifelock. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and get 60 days of identity theft protection risk free-- that's right, 60 days risk free-- use promo code "not me". order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 value, free. [click-click]
[♪...] it's time to get going. to have the energy to turn a "to do" list into a memory. to put more giddy-up in our get-along. to keep stepping up even in overtime. it's time to start gellin' with dr. scholl's... ... and mix a little more hop in our hip hop. thanks to the energizing support and cushioning of dr. scholl's massaging gel insoles, your feet will feel so good... ... you'll want to get up and go.