tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 7, 2014 12:00am-1:01am PST
participants in the middle east but no longer should our response to be open a military base in every trouble spot around the globe. those who would argue our withdrawal from iraq created instability need to be asked what sort of instability was created by the u.s. going into iraq in the first place? that's "hardball" for now. thank you for being with us. chris matthews comes back tomorrow night. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening, from new york. i'm chris hayes. and the first big political battle of the year of the fight over extending unemployment insurance will get a vote tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. today, the battle lines were being drawn. today congress is back in session with the first big fight of this election year. the issue, extending unemployment insurance to 1.3 million of the long-term
unemployed who have lost their benefits just three days after christmas. democrats want the benefits extended. and they think they have a winning issue. >> this is typical for republican members of congress. not republicans, but republican members of congress. the vast majority of american people believe that unemployment benefits should be extended. >> but the tea party right wing, the same folks who brought you the shutdown, are rallying the troops against the bill. coming out hard against the unemployed. at a time when millions of voters across the country know or have someone in their family looking for work. today, the club for growth announced they would be scoring the senate vote to extend benefits and holding it against those members that voted yes. heritage action, the group that orchestrated the shutdown, urged senators to vote no. but what's been missing from the battle, amazingly, are actual republican politicians. much like the shutdown, republicans find themselves
trapped between a right-wing tea party pushing something unpopular and democrats gearing up for a fight. rand paul is one republican who actually came out and made the affirmative case against long term unemployment insurance. >> i do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. if you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers. >> he was so thoroughly criticized for that interview he walked it back just a few weeks later. >> with regard to unemployment insurance, i've always said that i'm not opposed to unemployment insurance, i'm opposed to having it without paying for it. >> meanwhile, chris christie, the other great 2016 contender for the republican crown, a man fond over for his willingness to take on his own party, when asked about a benefit extension was not exactly a profile in courage. >> that's really a federal decision. there's nothing that the state can do. we're dependent upon the federal government in that regard. >> the defining issue of this
coming election season will be economic justice. and which side politicians in washington are on will decide their political future. the republican congressional brand has recovered from the debacle of the shutdown. spitting on millions of americans looking for work is as good a way as any to reverse that. joining me now, maddie depler for americans for tax reform. maddie, i am really intrigued by the fact that republican politicians seem to have the position they don't want to do this. they do not want to extend emergency unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. but aren't making the case. what gives? where are they on this? >> well, i think that there's really difficult to say it's just republicans who don't want to do this. listen, if harry reid really needed to get this bill done, he would have put it in the budget agreement in december, he would have had this on the floor months and months ago. >> whoa, whoa, whoa.
stop right there. >> i mean, we're not -- >> stop right there. stop right there. >> all right, chris. >> actually that's not the tact i thought you would take here. i give you points for ingenuity and innovation. am i to believe actually it's the democrats who don't want to extend unemployment insurance? because the condition, all the reporting about the ryan/murray budget deal was democrats were pushing to include that extension in there and for republicans that was make or break and the end of the day decided to leave it out and continue it for now. so if we held a vote right now, between democrats and republicans, is it not the case that all democrats would vote for this extension? >> well, they were supposed to hold the vote just a couple hours ago and that got pulled until 10:00. maybe you'll have your answer tomorrow when it does actually finally come to the senate floor. you know, i will agree with you here, chris. i do not think republicans are making a compelling case for why they don't like the senate bill. the senate bill is not simply just an ex-tex tension of unemployment insurance like we've been doing for the past several years. what it does is kicks it out three months. what's to say three months from now anything is different? my issue with the senate bill is it doesn't do anything to actually help the long-term unemployed which is really the critical issue when we're talking about the economic ma lasz we're in right now.
>> stop right there, again. i will agree with you kicking the can now for three months, let's just extend it permanently. let's put in benchmarks of unemployment rates, right, so we don't have to keep doing this. totally agree can you. instead of just having to do this every three months on an emergency basis, let's say if we have unemployment at a certain level, have the long-term unemployed at a certain level, it just renews automatically? that would be great. my question to you, there seems to be some confusion on the right whether they're ideologically opposed to the very idea of long-term unemployment insurance, emergency unemployment insurance during a weak labor market. what is the argument against it? >> well, i think that you're right. we haven't had an actual process where we brought the bill to the floor and been able to see why republicans don't want to vote on the senate bill. if we had an open amendment process and had republicans and democrats who come to the floor and offer their ideas to fix this bill, we would have a much clearer picture as to why it is we've got two sides fighting over unemployment insurance. because i think you're right, i don't think the question is, you know, should we not have any kind of insurance for people who
lose their jobs? of course not. what we're doing right now is we're looking at a long-term unemployment projection that is very, very bad. it's not even that it's bad for these three months, that it's bad just for this year. it doesn't get better in the out years either. to say we should continue to do the same program, continue the same program that we've had that has not really netted any new employment or done anything to help people, like i said, especially those long-term unemployed workers, that's the real issue. >> wait a second. that sentence there, i think that's the key. that sentence there. has not done anything to help people. i think you will find if you were to go and interview people who have been long-term unemployed, they would say the benefits have helped them. has it gotten them a job? no. do all these people want jobs? yes. precisely. in fact, that's exactly why i think so many people took offense to rand paul's suggestion these people have been lured into indulance by the state giving them these benefits. they do matter for these folks.
we're agreed having your benefits on day one and not day two, your life is much worse off on day two. there are 1.3 million people in this country right now dealing with that completely undeserved ministry. >> i agree with you. to say to continue writing them a check is the right prescription for that problem is wrong. i think there's a lot of really great ideas out there as to how to address this issue. the american enterprise institute has done fabulous work on this. some ways to look at this system, and continue to have a safety net that actually encourages workers and allows people to search for a job and rewards them for doing so. >> here's what i will agree with you. it is necessary to continue these benefits for these folks. it is not sufficient for getting them book to work. mattie duppler. thank you so much tonight. joining me now, senator chris murphy, democrat from kentucky. member of the senate health education labor and pension committee. senator, the vote is scheduled for tomorrow. as of now, the most recent whip count according to my colleague,
kasie hunt in washington, d.c., is three republicans, dean helle helle, lisa murkowski, and susan collins of maine. all three saying they'll society for cloture. you have to get two more votes. are you going to get it? >> i think we're going to get it. senator reid in part called their bluff tonight. they said, hey, wait a second, we don't have all our senators here, give us until tomorrow morning, not expecting senator reid was going to agree with them. we put off the vote until 10:00 a.m. the hope is between now and then we'll be able to get two, three more republicans come across the line. this is just awful policy. and even worse politics for these guys. i don't know why they want the next two, three weeks to be all about the republicans turning their backs on the long-term unemployed. that's horrible for them and horrible for those folks. >> i could not agree with you more. in fact, i am baffled by the fact we are once again, it seems, watching the republican party be led into a fight it cannot win by certain elements
of their coalition. her tamg action which is going to score the vote. look at mark kirk, your colleague, someone you probably have a degree of respect for, someone who's been right on certain issues. he's someone who has 8.7% unemployment rate in his state and 81,000 people who have lost benefits. see his office number there if you're inclined to contact him about this vote. i can't imagine it's good for mark kirk, as you say, for this to be the story for the next two weeks. >> no, you sort of get the sense with a lot of these guys that they will take on the right wing like heritage action in dribs and drabs and that they might have taken them on to end the government shutdown but have to back off over unemployment benefits. might have voted for the budget but now they need to essentially take a back seat in the fight. listen, these republican right wing groups hold enormous power in the senate, and right now, unfortunately, the vast majority of their caucus are listening to those folks. >> do you -- when you say that, that's something we track here and we report on and it's -- do you see that in the faces of your colleagues when you talk to them? how does that manifest? you say they hold power.
how does that manifest? >> listen, there are so many of them that are only worrying about their primaries, and when you are simply worrying about protecting your right flank and some of these pacs and families in and of themselves hold essentially the keys to you surviving that primary process, then you're going to listen. listen, these guys know in their hearts that this is the wrong thing. that's why i think whether it's tomorrow, later in the week or early next week, they'll come around. i've seen this process play out already on a number of different issues. unfortunately, it's going to take a little bit of a process to get there. >> i think we saw some republicans, conservatives sort of flirting with the idea of making the case against this extension by kind of talking about, in some ways demonizing unemployed. you spent a day during the recess with a man from your state who's looking for work. what was that like? >> yeah, i spent a whole day with actually a guy who's homeless, and he has only one source of income, and that was
extended unemployment benefits. he had $100 a week coming in and nothing else. that disappears. that really is a matter of survival for him, but the real story is that there are thousands of others in connecticut who are basically not homeless today only because of those benefits. and what this guy essentially has found is that without a home, he can't find a job because putting a homeless shelter down as your address on job applications is a nonstarter. the idea we're going to cut off benefits to all sorts of people who are paying their rent and their mortgage with these extended benefits, thereby making them homeless, thereby guaranteeing that they stay unemployed, it's just bad from a position of conscience, but it's also terrible from a position of economics. your guest said we're not doing anything for them. no, these benefits actually keep people housed which allow them to search for jobs. >> finally, today, janet yellen was confirmed in the senate to be the first woman to head the federal reserve. someone who many people are very
excited about. she's going to play a key role in the recovery and in getting these people back to work as well. >> yeah, she is, because i think she's going to recognize that the fed has two missions. one which is to keep inflation in cheng and the other which is to address unemployment. there have been a lot of us who have worried the fed spends a lot of time on the former and not enough on the latter. i hope that she is going to be connected into this issue of the long-term unemployed. if you're short-term unemployed, your prospects are getting better week by week to find a job. for millions of people out of work for a year, two years, three years, they need not just a congress who's paying attention but somebody who's overseeing the federal reserve and monetary policy of this nation that's paying attention to their plight. i think she'll do that. >> they need the full attention entire leadership class of the country, every politician, every representative, every institution because we destroyed this economy back during the great crash, and we broke the labor market and the people were caught in it. they were broken along with it.
senator chris murphy. >> thank you very much, chris. >> thank you. coming up later, former minnesota vikings punter chris clue we, why he thinks he's been blacklisted from the nfl. >> eight years for the vikings, i did what they wanted to. i had no complaints about my job performance. my numbers were very, very consistent. so what changed between that eighth year and ninth year, well, i started speaking out. >> what she was speaking out about and the impact that could have on the nfl, ahead. we use this board to compare car insurance rates
side by side, so you get the same coverage, often for less. [ rattling ] that's one smart board. what else does it do -- reverse gravity? [ chuckles ] split atoms? [ whoooosh! ] hey, how is that atom-splitting thing going? [ rattling ] [ electronic whistling ] oh! [ zap! ] a smarter way to shop around. now, that's progressive. call or click today.
have you heard it's been really cold? it's true. and snowy, too. so much so the airline, jetblue, took the very drastic step today of suspending all flights for the nation's busiest airports for 17 hours as temperatures develop below freezing across the country. hundreds of canceled flights, thousands of travelers found themselves stranded. meanwhiles, schools shut their doors. governors declared states of emergency.
deep, deep freeze. subzero temperatures throughout the midwest. windchills around 60 below in montana, minnesota and north dakota. in chicago, place i used to call home, a place pretty used to it being extremely cold, school was canceled as temperatures hit minus 15, and air travelers around the nation faced massive gridlock with more than 4,000 flights canceled today, alone. absolute mess. it was also the greatest day in the world for the army of climate change people we have dubbed the snow trollers. to gleefully suggest the quote/unquote global warming hoax has been exposed by mother nature. >> well, there's been a concerted effort of people to believe that global warming is taking place, that we're all going to die and all of that. at the same time, the evidence out there is just, it's almost laughable.
>> this winter is brutal. i mean, i'm in new york right now. the airports were closed. everything is closed. it's freezing. well, it's a hoax. i think scientists are having a lot of fun. it was -- i wouldn't say started, you know, just like al gore started the internet. he's the one that really is the big proponent. >> after we coined the term "snow trolling" last week, it engender response like this treat. lol, 30 inches in new england. charles cook, conservative "national review" criticized the left for hyperbole on global warming but at least admitted weather is not the same as climb, allowing "it's silly to see snow out your window and conclude the world is cooling." joining me now, tim carney, senior political columnist of the "washington examiner." my friend, someone i don't see eye to eye with, a man who i feel dabbles a little in snow trolling which is why i wanted
to have you on, tim. you and i had an exchange the other day about what are the ground rules for when it's okay to talk about weather and climate, right? >> yes. >> so, you go first. >> yes, you and i are journalists. you're a writer. what we do, we use anecdotes. you go out, talk to the voter and try to use anecdotes that demonstrate a broader trend. >> right. >> so if i'm going to talk to a voter, i try to make sure what he's saying lines up with what polls say. >> yep. >> so if you're going to say, hey, it's cold today, and make that mean something, it should correlate with something. i think, look at chicago, for instance. nine of the ten coldest days in chicago history are in our lifetime, chris. >> right. >> only six of the ten hottest days in chicago are in our lifetime. the winters in chicago are getting colder since 1990. >> wait a second. >> a trend in chicago winters is cold, so to point out the cold is highlighting a trend that the data supports. >> to point out the cold is -- here's where it's really important to get this straight, okay? there is -- the weather on any given day is not the evidence one way or another for global warming or climate change. right? the evidence is a massive body of data that we're collecting in all sorts of places from hawaii to the arctic, to the antarctic, in ice cores and all over the place, right? >> sure. >> that massive body of data which is studied by climatologists above 98% of whom are quite convinced the planet is warming, right?
that is the body of data, that's the evidence. whether it's hot or cold on a given day is not evidence in a direction. what it can be is illustrative of the future -- >> exactly. >> it's illustrative of the future we are headed into which is why, when there are wildfires in colorado, when there's a heat wave in australia, when there's massively destructive storms hitting us, we talk about those weather events as windows into what an extreme future will look like. they are not evidence -- they are not a data point that says the world is warming. what they are is a window into the future we are heading into. >> but you guys pick every possible point to do it. if you want to -- >> because the world is warming. >> if you want to talk about melting arctic ice, that is a symptom of climate change. if you're going to go ahead, though, and say that droughts were caused by climate change, you need a lot more -- you said that, barack obama said that. the -- what was it called? it was a drought task force went ahead and said, no, i don't
think you can attribute the 2012 droughts to climate change. this noaa. the federal government -- you attributed to it and obama attributed to it. that's my friend, charles cook's point -- >> here is the point, though. this is the point, right? this is a way, and you're right, we have to tell stories and we tell them with anecdotes. >> yes. >> point is that data out there that's being corrected, right, that just means nothing to people. what means something to people, and that's the reason the snow trollers are so gleeful, right? that's why drudge does this precisely for this reason because what means something to people is how does it affect me? when there's a drought, like in 2012, what we are saying when we cover that drought is this is what the world will look increasingly like. this is what we are edging into because the numbers mean nothing to people. >> so you are saying it's okay to use a drought which the federal government, the drought experts in the federal government said this is not caused by to say -- >> every climate model suggests we will have more droughts and that is going to ruin people's lives, create massive misery, dislocation, massive policy responses we will need. all of that is necessitated by
the front edge of climactic disaster we are on the front edge of and so using those examples to illustrate that is completely legitimate. what is not legitimate is saying it's 15 degrees out in minnesota right now, ergo al gore is fat, er errgo there's no global warming. >> not legitimate so say we're going to get 40 foot sea level rises because antarctica is going to melt when antarctica's ice levels are thickening. we've known for a while even in the global water -- >> the sea ice is thickening but the arctic is melting. >> and so the southern hemisphere, though, isn't seeing the same sort of warming. >> here's the question. >> when people like you say the planet is literally melting -- i remember you saying that to me on can up with chris hayes." i might have the quote a little wrong. >> it's melting. >> when you say that, it makes it hard for us to have a debate. >> that's not the point. >> i bet you and i could lay out things we agree on about climate change then get down to what we
disagree on which is mostly the policy. >> okay. that's great. look, that's all i want in this world is precisely that. the point is you come on, right, and the first thing you do is say, well, look at this chicago, nine of the ten coldest. you don't think the world is getting colder, right? >> i think chicago winter are getting colder. >> you understand the world is not getting colder. you understand the world is warming. >> the world is warming. >> thank you. >> greenhouse gas concentrations in the world are adding to that. industrial activity is adding to it. and your favorite policies will not turn that around and any policy that would turn that around will cost much more than a atapation. >> if we get to the point where james inhofe goes to the floor and says the world is warming, global, carbon emissions are contributing to that warming but the liberals are wrong with their solution and drudge goes on the front page of drudge and says the world is warming, but the liberals -- nothing would make me happier. i'd devote all my shows forever until they tick ake me off the air. >> you'll say the planet is not melting? >> tim carney from the "washington examiner."
coming up, peter king completely lays into a member of his own party. >> either he's totally uninformed or he's part of that hate america crowd that i thought left us in the 1960s. in any event, he doesn't deserve to be in the united states senate for spreading that type of misperception and absolute lies. >> hate america crowd? who was he talking about, and what that person is saying in response, next.
king has basically accused a republican senator of being a terrorist enabling quiz ling who doesn't care about americans getting get ing killed. if you think that's exaggerating, listen for yourself. >> the nsa is not listening to anyone's calls at all and no record at all can be looked at unless it has a direct connection with a foreign terrorist. rand paul does not know who he's talking about and really spreading fear among the american people and also today, i understand, on the show was also comparing general clapper to snowden? i mean, to me, either he's totally uninformed or he's part of that hate america crowd that i thought left us in the 1 19 6 1960s. he doesn't deserve to be in the united states for spreading that type of misperception and absolute lies. he has to realize there's an impact in what he says. if we follow his policies, it's going to lead to the death of americans. >> congressman king is one of the most outspoken members of the party.
what got him ginned up is senator rand paul's announcement of a class action lawsuit against the nsa. senator paul said the director of national intelligence, james clapper, should be imprisoned for lying to congress just as edward snowden deserves some jail time, but not life imprisonment or death for his national security leaks. >> so i think, personally, he probably would come home for some penalty of a few years in prison which would be probably not unlike what james clapper probably deserves for lying to congress and that maybe if they served in a prison cell together we'd become further enlightened as a country over what we should and shouldn't do. >> senator paul was referencing there what was a pretty clearly general clapper's lie to congress about metadata that was revealed by snowden's leaks. take a look. >> does the nsa collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans? >> no, sir. >> it does not? >> not wittingly. there are cases where they could inadvertent inadvertently,
perhaps, collect, but not wittingly. >> that is, as we now know, completely untrue. in fact, the nsa is collecting bulk data on millions of americans in all sorts of ways. now, underneath bluster of congressman king and the senator is one of the most fascinating high-stakes ideological battles within the republican party, pitting the maximalist wing, including john mccain and lindgy graham on one side, against a rand paul wing that's far more skeptical of foreign intervention and the size of our country's national security apparatus. this fight will move from its rhetorical phase to its legislative phase as congress tackles reforms based on the edward snowden leaks. it's going to have huge implications for the republican party in 2016 and what kind of country we live in. joining me now, john stanton of "buzz feed. "were you surprised by the level of vitreal in king this weekend? >> no, not at all. you know, he said things like
this about rand paul before, about marco rubio with the funding for the hurricane disaster in long island. he has got problems with folks like them among the party. he's very much an institutionalist, neocon, old-school sty republican and looks at people like rand paul and ted cruz and others as sort of upstarts that are bringing a libertarian sort of crazy person kind of thing in his mind to the party. and, you know, peter king is not the kind of guy that's not going to call you crazy if he thinks you're crazy. >> what i think is really interesting about the way the battle is shaping up, first of all, peter king has been flirting with a presidential run. at least that's what he said and been reported which seems preposterous to me, frankly. just in terms of what his actual chances would be in a republican primary field. right now you're going to see this test case of where republican lawmakers line up as
these battles happen, legislatively, over nsa reforms, in which they are going to be torn between the kind of establishment and elite foreign policy thinkers in the party and the actual base. >> yeah, you know, and it's interesting to watch because part of, i think, peter king's problem, frankly, is that every time he sort of draws the line in the sand, more stuff comes out about what the nsa has done which is emboldening folks like rand paul. he say, well, they aren't collecting any information on americans. turns out they are. well, then it's not very much. well, turns out that they are collecting quite a bit of information about americans. and, you know, now we think maybe they're collecting information about members of congress, and republicans, unlike democrats who have long had this sort of fight within the party, a very open fight going on over this issue, republicans now are suddenly beginning to see it on their side as well and it's been tamped down for a few years but now, you know, with rand paul and folks like that coming up, and a lot of members not really
on either side of the fence to begin with, you're starting to see this fissure grow. >> there's been important moments in this. i think the kind of mass rejection of the idea of a syria intervention, which happened across party lines but particularly among the right, you know, against john mccain and lindsey graham in that wing. right? i mean, we saw the grassroots really mobilize and rise up there. we've seen it around some of the nsa stuff. i really think the energy in the party is there, and what's fascinating to me as a test is that's where republican lawmakers go on domestic issues. do they follow it on foreign issues as well? and national security issues? >> you know, you're right. i think it even began before that with libya stuff where you saw, you know, john mccain and lindsey graham trying to push a hawkish approach and a lot of republicans not being very comfortable with that. you know, these -- the divide has happened on the domestic side. i'm not sure if it's going to be as pronounced and if you're going to see a full-scale swing. i don't know if you're going to
see, for instance, mitch mcconnell and john cornyn, for instance, jump into the nsa camp. i do think you are seeing more and more old republicans and older republicans and folks that are just sort of rank and file guys in the house and the senate start to lean that way. >> and, finally, my political question for you is this. it seems to me that peter king is basically functioning as a chris christie stalking horse surrogate. we know that's the part of the party peter king identifies himself with. christie and paul are intense over these issues. seems to me peter king is standing in for christie in waging this fight. >> actually, that's interesting. i think they clearly are the sort of the northeastern republicans, right? and, you know, they're not particularly conservative in a traditional manner, what we consider to be a traditional manner now. >> right. now. >> we both have these oversized personalities. they love to be bombastic and yell. the two of them would be fun to watch out on the trail yelling and screaming about rand paul and ted cruz. that's for sure. >> i'm looking forward -- i'm really looking forward to those debates with peter king and
chris christie and rand paul all debating foreign policy and national security policy. john stanton from "buzzfeed." thank you. i'll talk to former minnesota vikings punter chris kluwe who said he was fired from football because of his support for gay rights. plus the big news out of utah today in the fight over same-sex marriage. those stories are still ahead. and a low sex drive, i had to do something. i saw my doctor. a blood test showed it was low testosterone, not age. we talked about axiron the only underarm low t treatment that can restore t levels to normal in about two weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant, and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer, worsening prostate symptoms, decreased sperm count, ankle, feet or body swelling, enlarged or painful breasts,
in a few minutes my conversation with former minnesota vikings punter chris kluwe who says he was fired speaking out about gay rights while playing for the nfl but said something else during the interview i thought was quite revealing about what seems like a double standard in the league when it comes to cases of domestic violence, how guys have been charged with those kinds of crimes are right back out on the field as if nothing happened. >> it is a problem, and i think it's one that we as society let the nfl get away with because we're more concerned about seeing players that will
entertain us with feats of athletic fortitude on the field rather than, you know, hey, are these guys taking care of business in their personal life? you know, are they acting like human beings? and i think, again, that's something that as a whole, as a society, we have to ask ourselves that question. is our entertainment worth what we're paying for it in terms of how people are acting? >> more of that conversation next. life could be hectic. as a working mom of two young boys angie's list saves me a lot of time. after reading all the reviews i know i'm making the right choice. online or on the phone, we help you hire right the first time. with honest reviews on over 720 local services. keeping up with these two is more than a full time job, and i don't have time for unreliable companies.
chris kluew gained notoriety last summer when he came out in support of marriage equality by writing an open letter to emmett c. burns jr. calling burns a big biggen big bigot. then last week, kluwe just about blew up the internet with a tellall letter published on deadspin.com in which he suggested he was cut from the vikings because of his ga yrgs y writes advocacy, writing "i honestly don't know if my activism was the reason i got fired. however, i'm pretty confident it was." kluwe also accused special teams coach mike preefer of bigotry for allegedly saying in a team meeting, "we should round up all the gays, send them to an island and nuke it until it glows." some of kluwe's former teammates rallied around the coach. "blair walsh "i personally can attest to his character. his professionalism in the workplace is exemplary and i firmly believe my teammates wholeheartedly agree."
and announcing an independent investigation into kluwe's allegations. this highlights yet another dark story behind the curtain of america's most popular and most profitable professional sport. joining me now, former vikings punter chris kluwe. thanks for coming on tonight. first question, i guess, is you seem to in the piece you wrote wrestled for a long time about whether or not to go public with this story. what eventually tipped you over and decided to do it? >> well, i knew it was a story i wanted to tell, and one of the reasons why i wanted to wait is because i didn't want to drop that story on my former teammates during season because it would have been a huge distraction for them. and i also wanted to try out for other teams during this year to show i could physically still play in nfl. but apparently, you know, i can still kick it 45 yards outside the numbers with good hang time, but just for whatever reason, i couldn't catch on with the team. it looked like as if my nfl
career was done anyways, might as well tell the story now. >> the most damning part of your account is about special teams coach mike preefer. rounding up all the gays on an island, nuking it until it grows. that coach has come forward and said he has no bias, he has gay family members. other viking team members seem to have rallied behind him. what's your reaction to all that? >> well, it's to be expected. i would have been very surprised if any active nfl players had come out in support of me because if you look at what i'm saying, you know, if i'm telling the truth, and obviously i believe i'm telling the truth since these are things that happened to me, i was essentially drummed out of the league, off the team, but a of ecause the things i said. to come out in support of me would be inviting the same sort of treatment. i'm not surprised players haven't spoken up, and, you know, it's really being blacklisted in the nfl is
definitely a thing that can happen. that's one of the main things i also want to make sure happens is that when i -- when witnesses have to talk that their anonymity is completely guaranteed. i don't want to see that happen to former teammates of mine or friends of mine. >> there are people i think who have reacted who said basically something along the lines of the following. you were very outspoken. you were kind of a provocateur, had a very high public profile compared to your average nfl player. that something like this was inevitable. it wasn't necessarily that the content of the views but just the fact the nfl wants its players to essentially be seen and not heard. >> yeah, and that's definitely an argument people can make, but my counterpoint to that would be the fact that for eight years, for the vikings, i did exactly what they wanted me to. i had no complaints about my job performance. my numbers were very, very consistent. and so, you know, what changed between that eighth year and ninth year? well, i started speaking out.
and it is within the team's rights to fire me for doing so. you know, they are perfectly capable of doing that. on the flip side, it's within my rights to speak out on that and say, here's what happened. is this the type of society we want to live in? >> you talk about yourself as being blacklisted. you suspect tuesday to your outspoken views, you're having trouble finding a job in the nfl despite the fact you can still perform as an athlete. i want to get your reaction to this. in 2012, "san diego tribune" found 21 of 32 nfl teams at one point that year had a player with a domestic violence or sexual assault charge on his record. is there a double standard that the league will allow people that have these kinds of criminal entanglements back on to play, no problem, but someone like yourself is now looking at exile? >> i think it is a problem, and i think it's one that we as society let the nfl get away with because we're more concerned about seeing players that will entertain us with feats of athletic fortitude on the field rather than, you know, hey, are these guys taking care of business in their personal
life? you know, are they acting like human beings? and i think, again, that's something that as a whole, as a society, we have to ask ourselves that question. is our entertainment worth what we're paying for it in terms of how people are acting? >> finally, do you think we will see an out gaynf nfl player any time soon? >> i think we will. really that's one of the things i also wanted to kind of point out with this story is the fact this doesn't just happen to me, this happens to, you know, millions of people across the country. but things are getting better. progress is being made. now, at the same time, we can't just be content with the progress that's been made. we have to continuously stride for more progress so that when that player does come out, they know that they have support, they know they have allies and know if something like this happens, there will be, you know, a backlash. there will be people who speak out against it. >> former vikings punter chris kluwe. thanks for your time tonight. really appreciate it. >> no problem. thank you for having me on. speaking of that progress,
some of you on twitter and facebook are asking about the hat chris kluwe was wearing in the previous segle with the number 6 . it represents any form of discrimination is incompatible with the olympic games including gender, race, or sexual orientation. winter games are less than a month away in russia where you an be arrested for speaking public by about gay and lesbian rights. the 6 campaign gives s s athletes and fans to speak out about that discrimination without breaking russian anti-gay laws. when we return, the state of our own laws here in the u.s.
robert shelby ruled that the state's same-sex ban violated the constitution of the united states which is a pretty remarkable ruling. then the tenth circuit court of appeals refused to offer a temporary stay to that ruling three times which meant upon issuance of the decision and for a 17-day period, plenty of scenes like this unfolded in salt lake city. allowing hundreds of utah gay and lesbian couples to get marriage licenses. it also meant the u.s. supreme court had to weigh in and today the highest court in the land stepped in and said, no more. no more marriage licenses will be issued in the state until the u.s. appellate court system has a chance to evaluate the state of utah's appeal of the decision by the district judge. so where does that leave the 950 gay and lesbian couples who are possibly sort of married in state of utah? joining me, matthew breen for the "advocate." and camilla taylor. all right, camilla, were you surprised by the supreme court decision? >> i was a bit disappointed, chris. the papers by the couple
opposing the stay were very strong, but it is actually quite commonly granted, in fact, in almost all of the cases in which we've won marriage in state high courts. a stay was granted pending the final determination by the state high court. in fact, there's only one exception to that. >> i've got to say, actually, i was shocked there was no stay offered at the lower levels because it seemed to me that this was paving the way for creating a situation in which you possibly had a whole bunch of couples in a very strange kind of legal limbo. >> well, i think it was pretty shocking that the stay was not granted by the tenth circuit court of appeals as well as the district court given the history of stays being granted in these circumstances. but there's something important to remember here. which is the fact the supreme court halted the further issuance of marriage licenses through this stay, that doesn't do anything about the validity
of those thousand marriage licenses that are already out there. they remain perfectly valid. >> that is a big -- there are two issues on the table right now, right, matthew? the question of what about those couples? and the question about the law more broadly. i want to play utah attorney general sean reyes talking about what the stay means for those couples. take a listen. >> we don't know the answer yet as to the marriages that have taken place already. there's no precedence, i believe, for this. and this is precisely the uncertainty we were hoping to avoid by requesting a stay immediately upon the decision of the district court. it's unfortunate that many utah citizens have been put into this legal limbo. >> you can't take people's marriages away from them, right? >> no, there is precedence for this. you just referred to that. california, prop 8. >> right. >> people were granted the permission to marry due to a state supreme court decision in california. in 2008. lot of people got married. when prop 8 was voted into law, removing the right did not invalidate the marriages that already happened.
i don't see -- i'm not a legal expert. i don't see any reason that the people who are legally married should be unmarried. >> absolutely. >> camilla, it seems to me it would be an incredible assertion of state authority to go -- to reach into the lives of a thousand married couples and tell them they are no longer married. >> absolutely. i think it's very clear that those marriages are valid, and there are, of course, 17 other states in the country and the district of columbia where same-sex couples currently can marry, so certainly this decision of the supreme court to put a stay on the further issuance of marriage licenses in utah doesn't halt the momentum that the freedom to marry is already achieving. >> before this decision, matthew, you're a native of the state of utah. >> yes. >> before this decision, you know, a month or two ago when we were mapping out where the next battle lines in the fight were going to be, i don't think anyone had utah on the radar. >> no. i did know there was a lawsuit in progress, but i did not
expect a result. nobody was expecting a result until january, in fact. so the idea that this was the next state, you know, a lot of these judges are appointed by republican governors. and so forth. you know, nobody expected that this was -- that utah was next at all. >> one of the things that's happened, of course, in reaction, there has been a backlash. this is a utah police officer, and arizona sheriff richard mack leading the constitutional sheriffs and peace officers association uprising against gay marriage. take a listen. >> the people of utah have rights, too. not just the homosexuals. the homosexuals are shoving their agenda down our throats. sheriffs need to defend the county clerks in saying, no, we're not going to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. >> there was reporting there was going it be a lot of fund-raising for a fight in utah. what do you think the contours for this politically will look like in utah? >> utah is a very interesting place -- >> the history they have with marriage. >> the history they have with marriage.
they have not said a whole lot yet except they support the decision by the supreme court to issue a stay. my hope is that they'll stay out of it just a bit. given the backlash -- >> the mormon church. >> the mormon church. exactly. given the backlash they got over prop 8. i doubt that's likely. they will find ways to wield influence. we're seeing there's a call for $2 million to spend by the attorney general to defend the ban on same-sex marriage. you know, and compare that to the $2.3 million which was used to defend doma by the house of representatives. >> right. >> we're talking about a lot of money. we're talking about a substantial energy. you know, and we're talking about, like, sheriffs wanting to defend a county clerk's right to disobey law. >> right. camilla, very briefly, what next for this case in the supreme court? >> well, the tenth circuit has actually put this case on a very expedited schedule. so the briefing will be concluded next month, and it's conceivable that the tenth
circuit could actually render a decision by this fall leaving the supreme court an opportunity to take it then. >> wow. then we get a square, straight-up ruling or the constitutionality of marriage bans. that will be something. matthew breen from the advocate. camilla day taylor. the rachel maddow show starts now. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. the united states of america needs a new ice breaker. not in some metaphor call sense like a getting to know you game at a party ice breaker. i mean an actual ice breaking ship. we only have one. or at least we only have one that is considered to be a heavy duty ice breaker. and it's this guy right here. it's called the "polar star." it was built in 1976. when it was built in 19d 76, it was supposed to have a 30 year life span. do the math. starting in 1976, that gets us to 2006. and in 2006, the "la