CNN’s Roland Martin on Wednesday’s “No Bias, No Bull” program featured another panel which leaned overwhelmingly to the left, during a discussion about the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8. Four of the five participants -- CNN correspondent Erica Hill, Lisa Bloom of TruTv, New York Observer columnist Steve Kornacki, and the Reverend Byron Williams of Resurrection Community Church in Oakland, California all sided with advocates of same-sex “marriage.”
Rev. Williams, who is affiliated with the liberal People for the American Way, argued that the decision “seems to go against our democratic values.” Hill asked the pastor, “Should that decision on marriage be left up to different religions, different faiths to make, and leave this to be more of a civil matter? And if that’s the case, why should God enter it at all?” Kornacki argued that there was an “inevitability” to the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” explaining that “you’ve got four states legalizing it. You’ve got people under 35 supporting it overwhelmingly. I mean, isn’t this just really a question of time, and we shouldn’t be that exercised about it?” Bloom thought that it was a “huge civil rights issue, and this is the first court ruling that I’m aware of that says that a majority vote -- a bare majority vote, can take away the constitutional rights of a protected minority group.”
As the segment began, the network played a clip from “Love is a Battlefield” by ‘80s pop star Pat Benatar. Martin, who is in his last week as anchor of the program, introduced his media colleagues on the panel, and gave a brief bio of Reverend Williams. The anchor did refreshingly include how the pastor is “a member of a group called African-American Ministers in Action, which is a product of the liberal-leaning organization People for the American Way.” Before going to the rest of the panel, he asked correspondent Jessica Yellin for an update on the litigation involving Proposition 8. He then turned to Rev. Williams and asked, “Prop 8 passed by a majority, in part, because of support from some minority groups, especially African-American [unintelligible] in California. Do you think there’s a divide between the gay community and other minority groups?”
The pastor minimized any divide between the two groups: “Prop 8 was defeated in practically every county in California except for those on the coast. So there’s no large black population in the inland valley per, so I think it’s overstated. With that said, I would also say that homophobia definitely exists within the black church. There’s a lot of work -- like the group I’m working with, People for the American Way -- that we have to do to sort of debunk that, so to change some of those existing feelings.”
Hill then posed her “should God enter it at all” question to Rev. Williams, who replied, “I think you make a great point...we’re talking about civil rights. So we’re not talking about a religious issue. And so then, we’re talking -- if we’re talking about civil rights, now we have to go back to the equal protection under the law clause, which I think clearly this denies....It seems to go against our democratic values.” Kornacki subsequently followed up by asking, among other things, “In the big picture, isn’t there sort of inevitability to all of this?”
As you might expect, the pastor agreed: “Oh, I think you’re absolutely right. The trajectory, regardless of what side of the issue you’re on, is definitely headed toward full marriage equality for [the] gay, lesbian, transgender community.”
The segment concluded with Bloom voicing her opinion on the issue: “I think it’s a huge civil rights issue, and this is the first court ruling that I’m aware of that says that a majority vote -- a bare majority vote, can take away the constitutional rights of a protected minority group. You know, Brown versus Board of Education was very unpopular at the time. It wasn’t up for a majority vote, and not -- neither have any of the civil rights of American minorities ever been up for a popular vote. That’s the beauty of our constitutional system.”
The full transcript of the segment, which began 43 minutes into the 8 pm Eastern hour of Wednesday’s “No Bias, No Bull” program:
ROLAND MARTIN: The California Supreme Court may have upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, but that’s certainly not the end of the story. Today, supporters of gay marriage are fighting back with a new lawsuit and talk of going back to the voters. But could a divide between the gay community and other minority groups doom the effort? Erica [Hill], Jessica [Yellin], Lisa [Bloom], and Steve [Kornacki of The New York Observer] are here, along with Reverend Byron Williams, pastor of Resurrection Community Church in Oakland [California] -- in Oakland. Reverend Williams is a member of a group called African-American Ministers in Action, which is a product of the liberal-leaning organization People for the American Way.
All right. Jessica, some new developments here?
YELLIN: Yeah. Quickly, just the news today is that first of all, this effort -- the ruling has fired up supporters of gay marriage, who have started a massive fundraising effort to get gay marriage legalized on the 2010 ballot -- so on the political front, another vote. But then in the courts today, a very odd couple got behind the push to get judges to overturn the recent ruling on Prop 8. Lawyers who argued on the opposite sides of the 2000 Bush-Gore recount -- they’ve teamed up to challenge the California ruling. So David Boies, who argued for Al Gore, and Ted Olsen, who was a Bush attorney, say they’re joining forces to show that gay marriage is a bipartisan issue. They think the courts made a wrong decision yesterday.
LISA BLOOM: You got to love that. (laughs)
YELLIN: It’s an odd couple.
BLOOM: You just do. Just because lawyers are on the opposite side of the case don’t [sic] mean that they hate each other.
MARTIN: All right -- good point. All right. Now Byron, Prop 8 passed by a majority, in part, because of support from some minority groups, especially African-American [unintelligible] in California. Do you think there’s a divide between the gay community and other minority groups?
REVEREND WILLIAMS: Well, first of all, the first thing I would say is that the attention given to the African-American community’s vote in Prop 8, I think, is a little overstated. African-Americans made up less than 10% of the -- of the voting electorate in the last election. Prop 8 was defeated in practically every county in California except for those on the coast. So there’s no large black population in the inland valley per, so I think it’s overstated. With that said, I would also say that homophobia definitely exists within the black church. There’s a lot of work -- like the group I’m working with, People for the American Way -- that we have to do to sort of debunk that, so to change some of those existing feelings.
MARTIN: And, of course, Reverend Williams, part of that was because of initial report said that 70% of African-Americans voted against [it]. But later, the folks came back and said, no, about 58%. So that’s probably one of the reasons why that came out there. Erica?
ERICA HILL: Well, just -- just in terms of religion, because there’s been so much talk about the role of religion in the -- in the votes here, and how it played out with Proposition 8. Should this be -- you’re a pastor, but should religion really come into play here, or should that decision on marriage be left up to different religions, different faiths to make, and leave this to be more of a civil matter? And if that’s the case, why should God enter it at all?
WILLIAMS: Well, I think you -- I think you make a great point, because in addition to being a pastor -- I still believe that I’m the only syndicated columnist in the country -- and I’ve been writing about this for a number of years, and I don’t think -- this is not -- it’s a civil -- we’re talking about civil rights. So we’re not talking about a religious issue. And so then, we’re talking -- if we’re talking about civil rights, now we have to go back to the equal protection under the law clause, which I think clearly this denies. In California right now, as a result of the court’s ruling, we have three class distinctions of people. We have one group who can get married, get divorced, and get remarried -- another group who can get married, get divorced, and cannot remarry -- then we got another group who can’t do either one of those things. So I don’t see how you can -- how the state can hold equal protection under the law, and these conflicting results at the same time. It seems to go against our democratic values.
STEVE KORNACKI: Reverend Williams, let me tell you -- I’ve been hearing from a lot of gay marriage supporters in the last couple days, especially in the wake of the California ruling yesterday -- a lot of just dismay and a lot of, you know, just overheated rhetoric about how, you know, awful this is. But in the big picture, isn’t there sort of inevitability to all of this? I mean, there was a similar ballot measure in California -- what, eight years ago? And it passed with 64%. Now, you’re down to 52%. Now, you’ve got four states legalizing it. You’ve got people under 35 supporting it overwhelmingly. I mean, isn’t this just really a question of time, and we shouldn’t be that exercised about it?
WILLIAMS: Oh, I think you’re absolutely right. The trajectory, regardless of what side of the issue you’re on, is definitely headed toward full marriage equality for [the] gay, lesbian, transgender community. That’s the direction, and I’ve seen polling, even recently, that has a percentage of people that -- has the majority favoring same-sex marriage now. So, this is inevitable. It is --
YELLIN: Wait -- let me interrupt for a minute and ask you, Lisa, because you’re a civil rights attorney in New York and California. What do you make of this decision? Do you think this is a civil rights issue?
BLOOM: I think it’s a huge civil rights issue, and this is the first court ruling that I’m aware of that says that a majority vote -- a bare majority vote, can take away the constitutional rights of a protected minority group. You know, Brown versus Board of Education was very unpopular at the time. It wasn’t up for a majority vote, and not -- neither have any of the civil rights of American minorities ever been up for a popular vote. That’s the beauty of our constitutional system. So this is -- that’s why it doesn’t surprise me that Ted Olson and David Boies have joined together now to make a federal civil rights case out of it.
MARTIN: All right -- the panel, the whole table -- [unintelligible]. Reverend Williams, we certainly appreciate it. Thank you very much for joining us.
WILLIAMS: Thank you.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wonderful,
May 28, 2009 - 15:28 ET by TOEFair enough,
Now, may all their children develope into very happy homosexuals.
the one thing
May 28, 2009 - 17:37 ET by LoosMooseIf they are so well convinced that this is inevitable... why don't they shut up and sit down and wait for it to happen? Quite simply because they know it is NOT inevitable. All of the rats are coming out of their holes because we have an administration that is weak and will allow a great many wrongs to be burdened upon the Federal government and the future of America.
Therein lies the problems we face today
May 28, 2009 - 15:41 ET by Eugenia"Hill then posed her 'should God enter it at all' question to Rev.
Williams, who replied, 'I think you make a great point...we’re talking
about civil rights. So we’re not talking about a religious issue.'"
It's because God has been thrown out of marriages that we have your contraceptors, aborters, and now same-sex wedding radicals. (I realize I'll probably get some flak from some of my protestant brethren out there about contraception, but that's okay.)
When the WHOLE point of sexual relations becomes just about the pleasure and not its amazing power to unify a married couple and potentially bring a new soul into the world if God so wills it, you get what we have today, just like in pre-Judeo-Christian pagan times" millions of legally dead baby and homosexuals pretending they can have what was meant for only a man and a woman.
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
-- GK Chesterton
Well, Anderson Cooper deserves a husband!
May 28, 2009 - 15:42 ET by jazboThose who believe in nothing will believe anything.
jaz... Well, maybe he
May 28, 2009 - 16:13 ET by bigtimerjaz...
Well, maybe he should give Shepp a call at Fox...maybe the can work something out and commiserate together.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
George Clooney is available
May 29, 2009 - 05:42 ET by Red JeepGeorge Clooney is available too.
No flak from this corner.
May 28, 2009 - 16:00 ET by rimskyNo flak from this corner.
If only there was a way to
May 28, 2009 - 16:29 ET by balboaIf only there was a way to outlaw contraception, abortion, and homosexuality...
there is a way bal! the
May 28, 2009 - 20:02 ET by TruthMongerthere is a way bal! the democratic process...
if we can outlaw smoking and Christmas displays - these other three will be EASY!!
Palin/Prejean 2012
Then we can move on to
May 28, 2009 - 20:05 ET by balboaThen we can move on to public displays of affection, Mark Twain books, hand-holding, pesto...
the sky is the
May 28, 2009 - 20:09 ET by TruthMongerthe sky is the limit:)
think of the health care cost savings!!
Palin/Prejean 2012
CNN again...
May 28, 2009 - 16:25 ET by ForbusNew USA Today/Gallup poll shows 57% oppose same-sex marriage. However, when CNN/MSNBC has a panel on this topic they just can't seem to find many of that 57% to balance the discussion.
Marriage is not a "civil
May 28, 2009 - 17:10 ET by robert108Marriage is not a "civil right". What homosexuals do will never be "marriage", no matter what they say.
CNN Panel.
May 28, 2009 - 17:47 ET by blazermaniacThere were more people on the panel, than there were viewers!
Marriage is not and has
May 28, 2009 - 17:55 ET by snaggletoothieMarriage is not and has never been a civil right. It is a contract. The gays use the civil rights pseodo-argument because they think it will get them their desired result. If they thought they could get what they want by arguing that it is an olympic event, they would go that way.
"It is a contract" You sure
May 28, 2009 - 18:05 ET by mandrake"It is a contract" You sure you want to use that phrase? Because as far as I know, as long as I''m of legal age, I can enter into a contract with whomever I please.
as long as its legal
May 28, 2009 - 20:03 ET by TruthMongeras long as its legal activity under agreement:)
Palin/Prejean 2012
I don't have a right to get
May 28, 2009 - 18:20 ET by balboaI don't have a right to get married?
Of Course You Do
May 28, 2009 - 18:30 ET by deerjerkydaveOf course you have a right to form any union you want...privately. But if you want a publicly recognized marriage then the public should be allowed to decide upon its definition.
→ jerkydave
May 28, 2009 - 18:36 ET by Cool ArrowYou shoulda' just said "NO"
But
May 28, 2009 - 18:47 ET by deerjerkydaveI personally know gays who have had private marriage ceremonies. It hasn't stopped them. They even have a pastor perform the wedding. It's just not recognized by the state.
The dirty secret, however, is that in California it is recognized under the label of a "civil union" and they're given all the legal benefits of a real marriage. So this only comes down to the label in California.
this could all be solved
May 28, 2009 - 20:06 ET by TruthMongerthis could all be solved with "civil union" and that way many more could participate - sisters who live together, child and elderly live-in parent or aunt or cousing etc etc...
but what they really want is the validation of the word "marriage"
Palin/Prejean 2012
Not So Fast
May 29, 2009 - 12:41 ET by deerjerkydaveWe already have civil unions in California. As you can see it hasn't stopped the gay agenda one bit. They will not be satisfied until the definition of marriage has been changed.
no we stop there gee i
May 29, 2009 - 13:19 ET by TruthMongerno we stop there
gee i wonder why these left-wing marriage bashers want it for themselves so badly anyway
Gay Relationships Not Equal
May 28, 2009 - 18:26 ET by deerjerkydaveWhen two gays find a way to procreate then they can get back to me on calling their relationship a marriage. Until then there's no way one can logically say that a gay relationship is equal to a straight relationship.
Procreation
May 28, 2009 - 18:59 ET by mandrakeProceation is the only purpose of marriage? Ok, here are my thoughts on marriage. I have found thru personal experience and observation of friends that true love only occurs once in a lifetime. Whether by God's design or evolution something in the brain gets hardwired to be attracted to that one person. I am hardwired to my wife..nothing I can do..though there have been temptations.
Now I suppose the same thing could happen to a gay person..is it fair to denign them the same rights as I have?
I don't get that either.
May 28, 2009 - 19:08 ET by balboaI don't get that either. There are MANY married couples who choose to never have children. Does that mean it's a pointless marriage?
In the Eyes of the State, Yeah
May 28, 2009 - 19:40 ET by deerjerkydaveWhy is the government even in the business of marriage? The state has two primary reasons: first, it has an interest in arbitrating property between the parties, and second, it has an interest in the stability and existence of future generations. Human life can only be created between a man and a woman. And the most stable circumstance for a man and a woman to procreate is through marriage.
What part of "marriage is
May 28, 2009 - 20:06 ET by mandrakeWhat part of "marriage is about more than procreation" don't you get? There are legal, insurance, pension visitation rights ..etc involved Do I have explain everything?
just call it a civil union
May 28, 2009 - 20:08 ET by TruthMongerjust call it a civil union - not marriage - or do i have to explain everything?
Palin/Prejean 2012
Not exactly. Just as long as
May 28, 2009 - 20:33 ET by mandrakeNot exactly. Just as long as the check box on all government forms under marriatal status read "married/civil union" and they meam EXACTLY the same thing. Then I'll shut up. :)
TWIST!
May 28, 2009 - 20:33 ET by balboaTWIST!
balboa... Does your mommy know you play on her computer?
May 29, 2009 - 00:53 ET by pahuberJust sayin'...
They are not the same thing mandrake. Gays are not denied
May 28, 2009 - 21:05 ET by pahubercivil rights on the basis of not being able to be married.
We Have That Now in California
May 29, 2009 - 11:09 ET by deerjerkydaveWe have that now in California but it hasn't stopped the gay agenda one bit.
Resistance is futile
May 29, 2009 - 11:12 ET by Sergeant ROCKTolerance is not enough. You will 'accept' homosexuals and their lifestyles or else!
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Spot on. That is their intent w/ their useful idiots supporting
May 29, 2009 - 15:04 ET by pahuberthem all the way.
"Tolerance is not enough. You will 'accept' homosexuals and their lifestyles or else!"
Acceptance
May 29, 2009 - 20:47 ET by Sergeant ROCKMandatory 'gay' day for K-5 students
Board imposes homosexual curriculum on classes
Posted: May 28, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A California school district has approved a mandatory homosexual curriculum for children as young as 5 – and parents will not be allowed to remove their children from the lessons.
The mandatory program, officially titled "LGBT Lesson #9," was approved May 26 by the Alameda County Board of Education by a vote of 3-2. Students from kindergarten through fifth grade will learn about "tolerance" for the homosexual lifestyle beginning next year.
The curriculum is in addition to the school's current anti-bullying program and is estimated to cost $8,000 for curriculum and training.
Further enlightenment...
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Yep, that is going on up here too. Do not forget the day of
May 29, 2009 - 20:59 ET by pahubersilence held by most HS's every year. I let my kids stay home to cost them money for that decision. I call it in as excused and they do not question it... maybe they know that any negative action against my children not attending that day will be an instant lawsuit... or they just do not GAD.
Certainly marriage is a
May 28, 2009 - 18:33 ET by snaggletoothieCertainly marriage is a contract. But some of its terms are set by the state. Not just anybody can make a marriage contract. In California I cannot marry someone who is 4 years old or someone of the same sex. There are many forms of many kinds of contract that are forbidden by the state. And marriage is not a civil right. It was not seen as such by the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, by Jefferson or by Woodrow Wilson. It is no such animal.
I see, that when 55 percent
May 28, 2009 - 23:14 ET by eaglewingz08I see, that when 55 percent of voters disagree with liberal views on politics or morals it is a 'bare majority view' which should not entitle the winner to foist such anti liberal views on the general population through legislation or otherwise. But if say the liberal, oh wait a minute let me think of one...., Obama, wins with less than 54 percent (which is less than the victory of Prop 8 supporters) then he has a clear mandate to turn the USA into the USSA and socialize the nation's economy and destroy capitalism and free enterprise and to destroy the energy and health care sectors in order to save them.
Liberalism is clearly a mental disease that rots the brain worse than Alzeheimers.
Yep...exactly right
May 28, 2009 - 23:34 ET by bigtimerYep...exactly right ew...
The hypocrisy is blatant...no one cares it seems to do anything about this...in the meanwhile I am watching this country being crumbled at breakneck speed by the enemy within...the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
"GAY" IS NOT A RACE
May 29, 2009 - 08:07 ET by SickofLibsSo "homophobia definitely exists within the black church."
Could it possibly have anything to do with the disparate number of mother-only black households, and that black Christians think it's in their best interest as a group to foster the traditional nuclear family model?
The other argument I've heard 100 times in the last few months is how, in some states, black and white couples were not allowed to marry until the 1960s. How is that a valid comparison?
The leap in logic (actually, hole in logic) required to accept the premise that a man "marrying" a man is the same as a man and woman of different races marrying is ludicrous. GAYS ARE NOT A RACE.
Gays comparing this "marriage by name" issue to the black struggle for equality is insulting to blacks, IMO. Nobody is denying them civil unions, where mixed race couples WERE denied even that.
This is about religion
May 29, 2009 - 13:17 ET by slickwillie2001This article about the New Hampshire bill points out what the gay mafia is really after, and why they are allied with the anti-religious elements in politics: Gay-Marriage bill Stalls in New Hampshire: http://www.reuters.com
"The state's House of Representatives objected to language in the bill that would have allowed religious groups to decline to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies or to offer gay couples other services."
The gay movement wants to force churches to perform their 'marriages'.
As much as they love
May 29, 2009 - 15:06 ET by ThatDudeAs much as they love screaming "separation of church and state" they just don't seem to understand what that means. The church doesn't dictate what government does, though its members may carry their beliefs from church to politics. In return, the government doesn't interfere in how the church operates so long as it's within the confines of the law. The government can influence public perception, but it can't force private industry or the church to act in coordinance with the ideology.
This is the left. If you can't win a debate, then shout over your opponents and force them to do as you wish. This is tyranny, and they are trumpeting it in the cause of "social justice."