and i know that's a big if but if you do, you'll love me on the online show later tonight on theyoungturks.com. i go django unchained on president obama's compromises on gun control and on the chained cpi. my mom used to call me django. we'll see you at the theyoungturks.com. >> john: tonight, "viewpoint" becomes the first tv show in history to feature interviews with both phil donahue and bill donohue. you don't want to miss it. also a democratic president proposing a budget with cuts in social security because republicans want us to have enough money so we can invade more countries that have never attacked us. two pro gun senators came out in favor of background checks and now the nra is accuse them of going on a vicious common sense rampage. this afternoon republicans allowed a gun law to go to the floor of the senate. by this evening the obama administration had confiscated all guns and declared law.

the nra tried to warn us. today is the birthday of the great and lovely ethel kennedy academy award winner joel gray on broadway at age 81 and antoine la i have a who died 15 years ago and had a chance to meet his hero. the first apple one computer was created on this date in 1976, a landmark event in the history of porn. this is "viewpoint." >> john: i'm john fuglesang. this is "viewpoint." thanks for joining us. it is a mark of washington's dysfunction that a simple procedural vote should be treated like a major breakthrough on an issue where 90% of the voting public favors one outcome. expanded background checks for gun buyers. after four years and two months of gridlock, we'll have to take what we can get.

the senate voted to allow debate on gun trafficking a federal crime, provide more money for school safety programs and yes, expand background checks. before the vote, the daughter of dawn the principal at sandy hook elementary school and the sister of a teacher who died in the massacre there spoke to reporters. >> we are standing here because her sister and my mom can't be. and their voices need to be heard and they're going to carry through us. >> our loved ones didn't i don't for no reason. they died protecting the chirp that they love and they deserve to have a vote. >> john: when the votes were tallied, 68 senators voted for moving the bill forward. 31 senators against it. breaking down the numbers the ayes included 50 democrats 16 republicans and two independents. the nays, 29 republicans and two democrats. and as majority leader harry reid told the senate, there are more votes to come. >> we're going to have to have a vote on assault weapons.

some people love it. some people hate it. >> john: kind of like the president's budget which is now taking heat from the right and the left. massachusetts senator elizabeth warren wrote in an e-mail to her constituents she was "shocked" by the president's proposal adding our social security system is critical to protecting middle-class families and we cannot allow it to be dismantled inch by inch. however, press secretary jay carney said the president had accepted republican proposals to cut social insurance in order to pass a budget that could help the middle class. >> in order to achieve that deal, he recognizes he will have to make some tough choices and that democrats will have to accept things that they would not otherwise want to do. but so too will republicans. >> john: while on the right national republican congressional committee chairman congressman greg walden of oregon said wednesday his budget really lace out a kind of a shock attack on seniors. but so far, speaker of the house

john boehner was concerned this attack wasn't nearly big enough. >> i made it clear that i disagree with what chairman walden said. this is the least we must do to begin to solve the problems in social security. >> john: which is in no way threatened by medicare. for more on today's vote, i'm pleased to be joined by representative mike thompson democrat of california and chair of the congressional gun violence prevention task force. congressman, good evening. what a pleasure to have you with us. >> john, it is good to be with you. >> john: thank you. as chair of the gun prevention task force, what do you think of the senate's bill? can this have a real impact on gun violence in america? >> i think it can. it is doing something that we've all wanted to do for a long time and that's expand background checks to cover those who aren't already covered. it is estimated that about 40% of the guns sold legally in the united states of america are sold without background checks.

this would expand background checks to cover all guns purchased at gun shows and on the internet. i think that's a good thing. most americans recognize that you can't be against criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from having guns and also be against background checks. it is our first line of defense. it is how we check first and foremost as to whether or not someone can legally purchase and own a firearm. so this is a good thing. >> john: over 90% of americans agree with you. you're working on a companion bill in the house with new york congressman peter king. how much support are you receiving right now sir? >> there is a lot of interest in the bill on both sides of the aisle. what we're going to do, we plan to introduce the bill pretty soon. and we're hoping to have other co-authors other than myself and republican colleague peter king. but i think the bill is going to fly out of the senate and i think it's going to get a vote

and it's going to fly out of the house. because, as you point out over 90% of the american people want background checks. an overwhelming majority nra members want background checks. we know they work. we know just in the year 2010, 150,000 people who were prohibited from owning firearms, tried to buy them through licensed dealers and the background check work, they were stopped. -- the background check worked. they were stopped. that's the kind we have to do to make sure our communities are safer. >> john: we've learned anyone who's paying attention the nra leadership does not represent their membership. they represent the gun owners who don't like this idea. we've been so caught up with the president's request for the big up-or-down vote in the senate. while that is a huge first step isn't the biggest challenge getting your legislation through the house when we know there are a lot of republicans who will resist it. >> there's no question about it. it's not going to be an easy

lift. i just cannot imagine anybody standing in the way of this tidal wave of support for background checks. as you point out over 90% of the american people want background checks. it doesn't infringe on the second amendment rights. as you know, john, i'm a gun owner. i support the second amendment. this has nothing to do with the second amendment. it has nothing to do with getting in the way of responsible gun owners, people who are legally able to purchase guns. this is focused on criminals and those who are dangerously mentally ill. >> john: it is great to have a reminder of the words well regulated appear. you held an event with veterans and released a survey on their views and preventing gun violence. what do america's veterans say about this issue? >> they're over the top. they recognize that with gun ownership comes responsibility. they believe strongly in background checks and it was a

real honor for me to stand with a number of veterans from across the spectrum, different branches of the service different war experience and we were there to speak out in favor of the expanded background checks to make sure communities are safer. >> john: let me ask you about the politics. because even with rampant gerrymandering that has kept some republicans in their seats do you think, sir, the g.o.p. will wind up paying a price in 2014 if this gun bill somehow i don'ts in the house? >> i can't imagine the voters being anything but terribly upset if this doesn't pass. it is unexplainable. it is absolutely unexplainable to tell voters that you believe that 40% of the people that buy guns legally should be able to avoid a background check. it makes no sense. as it's been pointed out a number of times. it is like only screening 60% of the people who get on airplanes

and then allowing the passengers to determine which 60 are screened and which 40 avoid the screenings. it is not how we make for a safe community. nobody wants their kids out in the playgrounds when there are criminals and dangerously mentally ill people that have firearms. it just makes no sense any way you cut it. >> john: i gotta say congressman, it is great to hear your optimism. one last question, if this passes the house, can we expect to see a last-minute push by the nra to try to kill it -- i'm sorry, if it passes the senate, can we expect a last-minute push to kill it in the house? >> anyone who opposes it will oppose it strongly and try to do everything they can to make sure it doesn't come to fruition. as i said, this has tremendous support behind it. i don't know of another thing that has over 90% support. and i think it is pretty dangerous to get in the way of the voters who are so insistent that we do our job we act

responsible and we pass a very straightforward gun background check legislation that protects the community and the second amendment. >> john: representative mike thompson, dmoskt california, many thanks for coming on the show and many thanks for your attention to this gun safety issue. >> thank you very much. >> john: i'm delighted to be joined by representative barbara lee, also a california democrat and a member of the congressional progressive caucus. congresswoman, good evening. what a pleasure to see you again. >> pleasure to be with you. >> john: jay carney said the president's proposals cutting social security proposals he felt had to be included as part of a compromise both sides could accept. do you or any of your colleagues agree? >> first, i'm a strong supporter of the president. i think he has done and continues to do a remarkable job. however, in this ins stands, i do not -- instance, i do not agree with the whole issue of

the chained cpi and going in terms of using that as a method to find $230 billion in deficit-reduction or cost savings. i think this is very -- very very wrong because what it does is it attacks our veterans who rely on social security benefits. it really attacks the low income seniors who rely on 22,000 a year in social security. it really hits to the heart of the most vulnerable, our seniors, our veterans. i think it is downright wrong. i hope that this tactical move by the white house is that only, just a tactical move because i'm confident and the president has said in the past that there would be no benefit cuts but i tell you going into chained cpi, going into this formula would become a benefit cut. >> john: i agree with you that i help to is a tactical move. we're already seeing republicans use it against the president and implying the democratic party is not on the side of seniors with social security.

>> that's just not the case. >> john: of course. >> the democratic party has always been on the side of seniors. in fact, i'm a member of the budget committee and the appropriations committee. i hear their arguments and i see how they're trying to use this against democrats. but believe you me, i see exactly what these republicans are doing each and every day and that is trying to decimate social security, medicare and medicaid. and in no way are they in support of insuring that our seniors have the type of life that they so deserve and that they worked for all of their lives. >> john: do you agree with senator elizabeth warren the president's proposal could be the start of a precedent that could see social security dismantled inch by inch? >> i hope not because we cannot allow social security to be dismantled inch by inch. this is a program a safety net program and a benefit program that people have worked for. this keeps our senior citizens living lives that they deserve to live that keep them from

falling into poverty. this is something they have earned all of their life. i don't want to see this begin to dismantle social security. that's why i hope that it is a tactical move. i'm confident that the president does not want to see our seniors disadvantaged in a way that this proposal would so do. >> john: you're right it is an earned benefit not an entitlement per se. but we saw speaker boehner earlier today implying this was not attacking america's seniors enough. will house democrats support the president's budget as is if it comes to a vote? >> john, that's to be seen. i don't know. when you look at the president's budget and you compare it to ryan budget, it is a heck of a lot better. there are investments in job creation investments in education. investments in preschool and early childhood education. i mean, by far this budget is a heck of a lot better than the ryan budget. so i hope that we can fix this chained cpi issue because you know, no one wants to see our seniors hurt and i think that

the speaker and the republican tea party they understand that they're playing games with this now. it is my understanding that this was his proposal and senator mcconnell's proposal. so they should go out there and say rah rah to the president and support his budget. but believe you me, there are plenty of democrats who feel we're going to have to fight until the end on this because we cannot allow our senior citizens to see their benefits cut. we cannot allow our veterans who have served this country so nobly and so honorably placed in wars that shouldn't have been fought. they deserve their benefits. our disabled individuals, people who rely on social security. they don't need any benefit cutting. we're going to fight this until the end. >> john: are you surprised to hear walden attacking the president's budget as i was? >> well, you know, there are many people attacking the president's budget. i'm not surprised about much of anything right now.

you know, there are many of us who feel that part of this budget is very troubling but also, many of us believe that there are some very good parts of the budget that we can really support. and so it is a much better budget than the ryan budget but once again we have to protect the most vulnerable and protect our seniors and protect the retirement -- their retirement in terms of economic security which they have worked for all their lives. >> john: indeed. there are a lot of very wonderful elements and positive elements to the president's budget. but the president did meet with a group of bank ceos today. so my question is has he scheduled any time yet to meet with the congressional progressive caucus? >> we have not on this issue had a meeting with the president yet. our cochairs, congress gree ha have a are working toward a meeting but i'm confident the president will meet with a variety of members of the house

and democrats congressional black caucus, to really discuss all of these issues. he has in the past. i'm confident that he will in the future. joafn i hope when he does, he will read the progressive congressional caucus's budget. it is the most sane document we've seen. barbara lee, thank you for your time tonight and thank you for your continuance to fight for the american people on these earned benefits. >> thank you so much john. great to be with you. >> john: thank you. okay, the president of the catholic league. the one and only bill donohue joins me next to talk about catholics in america and find what we can find to agree on. don't miss it.

>> john: it has been an historic year for the catholic church. for the first time in 600 years benedict xvi announced he would resign the papacy and the newly-elected pope pope francis i is now the first ever pope from the americas. time of great transition for the

catholic church. no one i would rather discuss that with than my next guest. i am very pleased to be joined here on current tv by the president of the catholic league mr. bill donohue. it is nice to meet you. >> thank you. thank you so much. pleasure to be on with you. >> john: propose francis. this man has the potential to move the catholic church forward in many exciting ways. i thought it was past east, there was no more clear sign of that than the photos the vatican released of the pope visiting a prison and kissing the feet of convicted criminals including women criminals muslim criminals. what do you think pope francis means for the future of the catholic children? >> i do think he is going to make some changes. some of them are long overdue. he has to begin with the bureaucracy. which has gotten far too comfortable which leads to corruption. i hope he shakes things up and brings with him a whole stock of men and women from buenos aires. there are other changes in terms of teachings. i think what he's saying is i'm open. he's captivated the whole world because of his humbleness.

where all of us are waiting for the first big signals the fact that he's -- reaching out to the common man unlike to some extent maybe his predecessors, i think shows an endearment there. but in terms of fundamental drastic changes, i don't think you're going to see that. >> john: do you expect big signals as you put it? >> well, we're looking already at some of the tea leaves on this. you have to be careful about overreading things. i've seen some people say well, because he washes the feet of the women therefore have women next week? i don't think that will happen. but i think it is a less threatening way. what you're not going to have, it is true some people -- you're not going to have arrogance. you're not going to have that clericalism that i know best. he's already spoken out about the problem that we've had in the catholic church with the scandal. he didn't seem to be afraid of taking on some things. that may actually help him that he's 76.

he's not exactly a youngster. so i think he knows he's going to move. >> john: let me ask you about reading the tea leaves. i was surprised many catholics were to read when the pope's official biographer, reuben said during the contentious battle for equality in argentina in cardinal came out in support of civil unions. do you think that given that, there is a possibility that this pope might publicly endorse the concept of civil unions? >> well, i don't know. that was more contractual given the situation in argentina. i think there are a lot of catholics, like myself, i can't speak obviously for pope francis. do i have a problem with civil unions? well yes and no. conceptually i don't, quite frankly. why am i hedging? because there's an appetite in the land now for full-fledged marriage equality as people put it and they're saying the civil unions is a second class.

if we had a constitutional amendment which would affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman and that was a federal statute then could people like myself come out in favor of civil unions? of course they could because you're not going to get to home plate. you will be stopped at third base. >> john: okay. let me ask you about detroit. we heard this week from the detroit free press that some detroit area catholic leaders are urging catholics who support marriage equality to not receive communion. how do you feel about that given many folks just want to follow the teachings of jesus? who never mentioned gay people in any way. >> no, but he understood marriage as people have. this idea of two men getting married is the most bizarre idea in human history. >> john: why is that? >> can we name of a single society or civilization in the history of the world up until yesterday which ever entertained this? >> john: caused panic in the street of america? >> where in western or eastern

civilization has anyone held up the flag and said two men ought to get married. i don't know of to get married. i don't know of a single religion hinduism, islam judaism that has recognized anything but between a man and a would. >> john: shouldn't christians be the one leading the fight? >> christians have an obligation to -- particularly catholics to follow natural law. that means, for example, that everyone knows in their right mind that only -- the whole purpose of marriage is to have a family. it is not about making people happy. it is not about love. if that's the case -- >> john: to have a family, that would preclude sterile people from getting married. >> no, not really because anatomically they're equipped. the thing is every child needs a father and a mother. is not just two people. social and psychological attributes that come from the father and the mother so i think that's a very important distinction. >> john: yet we've seen gay

couples raise healthy and well-adjusted children. >> we don't know that. >> john: i have friends raised by lesbian parents. >> i'm not saying you wouldn't find some who are. what i'm saying is the data is so recent and number two, most of the studies have shown -- we've asked the gay parents, do you think your parents are well-adjusted, i guarantee you i spent 20 years in education if you ask the teacher are most of the students doing well, what do you think the answer will be? that's not a test of anything. >> john: where in scripture does it say we should prohibit gay people from being married in a free society? >> as i remember, the ten commandments says honor thy father and mother, it didn't say honor thy father and father. >> john: that has nothing to do with love. >> marriage has nothing to do with love. >> john: in our society it does. >> it is one of the most bizarre ideas in the whole world. you fall in love to get married usually is a form of duty. the fact of the matter is that's a tenuous concept.

>> john: aren't you tired of carrying this banner against gay equality? where in scripture does it say that we have to treat our gay brothers and sisters -- >> it does take in leviticus about a man lying with a man. are we trying to say there's no pro-scription against homosexuality in the bible? >> john: do you follow leviticus? >> what do you mean lity us could? >> i don't. never had. had no interest in doing so. >> is your shirt made of two different fibers? do you eat bacon? >> yes, i do. >> john: do you work on saturdays? >> yes, i do. >> john: so you violate leviticus just like george michael. >> a little bit different between what kind of shirt i buy and two guys having anal sex don't you? >> john: it depends on who the guy is. >> what type of shirt he's wearing? >> john: you don't follow leviticus. we're christians. >> this is a little silly here. >> john: why? >> the purpose of marriage is to

have a family. even if you're sterile you can be stand-ins. you're a reserve ready army in case something happens to divorce or death, you can step in and take the father's place or the mother's place. we have mother's day coming up here in a few weeks. what do you say to a kid who has two fathers? >> you say happy father's day twice. >> the kid is left out. >> john: i think there's being left out and really being left out and when you're denying the basic lishtd -- no one has a right to get married. >> john: you have a right to deny the right to other people? >> if it is not in the constitution, it is up to the people. that's the way the constitution -- >> john: we gotta go to break. i want to ask you about this and about your issues with bill maher which you have well documented. we'll be right back and i'll continue my chat with bill donohue. i'm going to convert you on this.

>> john: welcome back to "viewpoint." i'm speaking with catholic league president bill donohue.

>> thank you so much. >> john: thank you for sticking around. the catholic league has taken issue with my friend, bill maher for some of the comments he's made in the past about the catholic church. while i can understand being angry or offended at the jokes he's made, are you concerned at all that your organization is coming off as playing the victim and giving him more attention? i mean when you have a comedian making mean jokes isn't that the time you turn the other cheek? >> no. if that was the case, they would close tomorrow. every time somebody makes an anti-semitic remark, best thing they can do is shut up. >> john: i'm talking about turn the other cheek. >> there are many passages in the bible too where jesus -- the money changers there in the temple. he threw them out. >> john: occupy wall street. >> the catholic church is not a pacifistic religion. we do believe in violence when it is against nazis and people like that. in the case of bill maher i

think the man is full of hate. we have detailed one example after the other. and look, i'm all in favor of having -- making fun of catholics with some jokes and what not. colbert and others do it. the problem with maher is this. he will make comments that all priests are molesters. we know what the rap is on jews, don't we? and blacks. american indians? homosexuals. chinese. all right? we know what it is, right? is there anybody like maher who is going to go on national television and tell all of the jokes making the sweeping generalizations about these people the way he does about priests and he does it over and over and over and over again. i don't think it's funny. i think it shows how utterly hypocritical the left is in this country, you can rip against priests. >> john: i agree. >> i've written to the people at time-warner asking if somebody might sit down with this man.

>> john: after what's happened, after the scandals the church has endured and worse the cover-ups the cover-ups protecting these child molesters over and over and over again you have to expect to receive this scorn. >> well, no. >> john: isn't it time for the catholic church to be gracious and contrite? >> i think i can demonstrate that's not the case. less than 5% of the molesting priests were pedophiles. most were homosexuals. >> john: hang on a second. >> why don't we have gay bashing jokes. >> john: gay bashing jokes all the time. the overwhelming amount of child molesters are heterosexual identified males. they tried to blame it on gay priest as well. >> you've got a serious problem with child rape going on in brooklyn. orthodox jews community. how come bill maher never makes a joke about that. >> john: i don't know. >> what about the muslims? >> he's making a joke about the catholics because they're having the rap about the sexual

hangups. >> john: we're not letting gay people marry but they're allowing this sort of thing. >> wait a minute. >> john: that stuff builds -- >> beating people up because we think that marriage should be between a man and a woman? is that what we come to in this country? >> john: beating people up? >> it is justified catholics get dumped on because a man and a woman should get married. >> john: the hierarchy gets dumped on because they protect the child rapists. >> we did have a homosexual scandal. that's a quarter of a century ago. >> john: it's happened more recently than that. there hasn't been a case since 1985? >> the cases are the murder and rape of the children on the reservations. you know what the average number is? less than 10. 40,000 priests and less than ten credible accusations made each year for the last ten years. you're talking about old news that the media keeps drumming up because they're talking about a case they found in 1958 where some priest grabbed some guy's

ass while he was wrestling. >> john: it is a bit more than that bill. come on. you know there's been oral sex -- penetrative sex of children. you know. >> most of it is homosexual sex of a post-pubescent boy who has been inappropriately touched by a homosexual priest. >> john: that's rape. >> inappropriate touch? >> grabbing your ass is rape. jon putting your pen in a kid's mouth is rape. it's happened, bill. it's happened. cardinal mahoney -- the. >> the catholic church has a monopoly on this? does this justify bill maher. >> john: you're more outraged about the scorn than the scandal. >> i'm more outraged every segment of the population, which has dirt in its own laundry -- i don't want to see wild sweeping statements made about muslims and jews. but why is it that we choose the

dirty laundry in the catholic church and say you deserve it and everybody else gets a pass? >> john: because the catholic church has a history -- are you more outraged about the molestation of children or about the mean things people have said about the church over the molestation of children? which are you more angry? >> anybody who would put his hands on a kid and molest him the catholic children is a bunch of wimps because if they use donahue's rule, i would have kicked these guys out. >> john: so we agree. we would like to see more bishops dial 911. >> unfortunately, that's what they should have done a long time ago. they were delinquent, they were irresponsible. i'm not going to defend that. >> john: that's fantastic. what did jesus ever say about gay people? >> the word gay didn't exist. when i grew up, it was a gay cowboy. >> john: what did jesus say about men who like men and women who like women? >> i don't think he said anything about how many threads you had in a shirt. >> john: he never said

anything about consensual relationships between same sex adults. >> to my knowledge he didn't say anything about cheating on your taxes. >> john: he said to pay your taxes. >> cheating on your taxes -- >> john: jesus never said a thing about adults falling in love with whoever they fall in love with. >> he understand natural law. we got it from him. >> john: these laws are from the old testament. leviticus. >> dutteronomy. >> deuteronomy is about roman temple practices. >> st. paul was talking about homosexuals in his letters. >> john: romans is talking past sense about straight men turning gay. >> do you think they will listen to people who aren't catholics telling them how you have to change? >> i think they should but it has nothing to do with the teachings of christ. >> you respect the right of one religion to have its own rules and if it doesn't work out for you, find a new home. >> john: the only problem with the rules is it is not based in

christian scripture. that's my problem with it. >> a few people, namely 2,000 years of theologians might disagree with you. >> john: a lot of gay people were burned and tormented. you know where we get the term fagot from, bill? >> i thought it was a cigarette in england. >> john: i hope you come back. will you come back? >> i do like talking to you. >> john: will you come back? >> for you, i will. president of the catholic league my new bff bill donohue. i'm going to make you go the gay way. i appreciate you being a good sport. >> i appreciate the commentary. >> john: okay. from bill donohue you're not going to believe this. to phil donahue, talking about gay rights. and obama's second term. that's coming up next.

>> john: on wtf ohio, we look at an all too familiar story. a republican state legislature blocking a medicaid expansion for no other reason than it was

enacted by this guy. that they don't seem to like, named obama. now, as we've noted before, the federal government covers the cost of the expansion for three years and then 90% thereafter. in other words, it is such a great deal that even a republican governor like ohio's john kasich is willing to overlook the deeply disturbing fact that it actually helps people in need and holds his nose while he accepts these funds. but a republican state house panel is nixing the $13 billion that would go toward providing 300,000 ohioans with healthcare. because the supreme court made accepting the funds optional and conservative groups have turned this into a litmus test. if you accept the funds many of your state citizens will be alive but you'll be dead to us. so republicans now have this sophie's choice of deciding what's more important? the health of their constituents or the health of their super pac donations. wtf, ohio. your politicians care about harming obama building up their

standing with corporate interests and staying in the good graces of wealthy right wing fringe groups but the one thing these ohio lawmakers don't seem to care about at all is ohio. ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain; it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. this is the age of taking action. viagra. talk to your doctor. fruit just got cooler. fruit on one side, cool on the other. ice breakers duo a fruity cool way to break the ice.

>> john: earlier this week, we showed part one of my interview with broadcasting legend phil donahue. it only seems fitting to play part two where we spoke about the amazing speed of the gay rights revolution and phil's small but significant role in its acceleration. >> the gay rights revolution has moved at warp speed. and i ought to know. my program began in november of 1967 in dayton, ohio. we had nowhere to go but up. we had nothing left to lose. and we put a gay guy on, a real, live homosexual in dayton, ohio, on live television. i mean, the building fell in.

sponsors canceled. >> john: an openly gay man. there were plenty of gay guys on tv before this. >> there was nobody out in 1967. nobody! maybe -- i don't know, maybe there were some people i didn't meet but here's this guy. i've never seen such moral courage. by the way mothers thought their kids would catch it if they watched it. and why was i putting him on. that just aggrandizes his lifestyle. putting him on makes everybody think it's okay. this is the male we got. -- this is the mail we got. that was over a year before stonewall. and i can't find the program. i got a letter just a couple of months ago from a young man who lives, i think in michigan. he said you had -- his name was clark pollock you had clark pollock on your show and he was my uncle. and i would like to have a tape

of that and i wrote him back and i said first of all your uncle was a very brave man. i also think that that program can rise to the level of historic. and i also have to tell you i can't find it anywhere. it was early in our show. videotapes were that thick remember. they were very expensive. we didn't know -- we weren't sure we were going to survive in dayton. we didn't know we were going to be a nationally-syndicated program. and we didn't know how pioneering it was to feature a live telecast, for an hour. and i was scared to death. i learned something about homophobia you know. i went to high school with guys who wanted to beat up queers. >> john: so did i several decades later. >> i didn't want to be with a

queer and now i have a queer on my television program and people are going to think i am and there goes my career. this is the way -- >> john: 30 years later queer is a positive term. >> then we did another show. and then another one and i began to meet a lot of nice people and be a little ashamed of how slow i was getting it, that this was a civil rights issue. that it is not a moral issue. that, you know, that gays are no -- there are gay jerks. but they don't abound in any greater numbers on average than you'll find in the so-called straight community. if gays are jerks it is because they're human, not because they're gay. phil donahue, 16 years catholic education, slow learner came along and finally got it.

and i'm very proud to say that i got the first glad award gay and lesbian alliance against defamation. it was in the time life hospitality suite. 16 people there. i got my picture taken. and glad asked me back for the 25th anniversary. of their founding. and i walked into the ballroom. marriott ballroom. wall to wall tables, not an empty seat. fortune 500 logos on the wall. general electric,. >> bill:, american airlines, all over. the red carpet with the photographers had more people on it than there were so you ask me what i think about this revolution? i've been very, very lucky to have a front row seat to it and it has been a great ride. >> john: before we go, i'll ask a simple one, it might not be a simple question but what are your hopes for the second term of this president? >> well, first of all my hopes

come from a very disappointed heart. i'm very discouraged that my president seems to have, i think, a tin ear when it comes to civil rights. i don't think we should have people in cages secret places around the world. i don't think we should turn anybody upside down and pour water down their nose. in many ways, i think the people who are aligned with me, there are millions of them, are the patriots. we believe in the bill of rights. we don't think you should be peeking in anybody's window. without judicial authorization nor should be listening in on their phone conversations. no habeas corpus. >> john: are you heartened by say, on the civil rights issue on his embrace of marriage equality or his banning torture as ronald reagan tried to do many years ago?

>> certainly. but so difficult to get it to come along. everybody got there before he did. and we're killing all americans in other countries. i want president obama to call a press conference and say we will from here on out not use drones in warfare. we probably are going to have to let him use them for social surveillance. at least start there. i think he would do more to bridge the kleeage that we've -- the cleavage we've developed between us and the islamic world, to name one part of the world and the rest of the world really. we look like a warrior nation. we name our invasions. >> john: haven't we been an empire that calls itself a superpower to avoid the stigma

of empire? >> exceptionalism, exceptionalism. you know i think we're exceptional. i think the constitution is very exceptional. a fabulous document. but it would be better if somebody from another country said we were exceptional. we're kind of giving ourselves away here. when a performer says you're a wonderful audience, you're a wonderful audience, ladies and gentlemen. about the fifth time he says it, you begin to wonder if it's true. and in the same way i think we don't do ourselves any favors. by pounding our chests for our own self-aggrandizement. >> john: phil, such a pleasure to have you with us. on behalf of our viewers, thank you for all of the great information you brought people, all of the great entertainment you brought people and for being the kind of american that makes other people proud to be american. >> thank you very much. wait until i tell the kids you said that. thank you. >> john: for more of my

interview with the great phil donahue and there is a lot more we didn't get to air please visit our web site at current.com/viewpoint. >> my own take on an issue of the day. a burning sweet pungent kind of issue that just blows your mind and is apparently popular among the majority of americans. that's on the f bomb next.

>> john: finally it is time for tonight's f bomb. next month the great willie nelson turns 80 so i sure hope someone warns him marijuana is the gateway to heroin. some people say he has a marijuana problem. i prefer to say he has a marijuana practice. it was three years ago that willie was arrested in texas for

possession of six ounces of pot. god, who produces it naturally across the globe remains at large. i thought of willie when the pew poll came out that shows, for the first time in u.s. history a majority of americans 52% favor marijuana legalization. actually, i should call it cannabis decriminalization because cannabis is the actual name of the plant back in the '30s when dupont chemical wanted to make the hemp plant illegal, they decided to use the spanish term for cannabis to take advantage of anti-mexican racism and it worked. i should call it decriminalization instead of legalization because that's really what it is. the criminalizing is a relatively recent phenomena. in colonial days, cannabis was a painkiller. back then, the biggest drug problem was the same as today washington. washington grew hemp at mt. vernon. we would lock them up if we ever locked up rich white guys for pot. it was as american as apple pie. if you smoked that flowery top

part, you would want to eat a lot of repel pie. abraham lincoln once wrote to the president of the hunter harmonica company are two of my favorite things are poping a pipe of sweet hemp and playing my harmonica. that poor guy deserved all the recreation he could get. this poll doesn't really need america's getting more liberal because technically legal cannabis is the conservative point of view. now, over the years we've grown up with the traditional propaganda about pot it makes you violent and lazy. to me, making violent people lazy is the only crime prevention plan that works but more and more americans came to realize cannabis hasn't caused murders. indeed, it may have prevented quite a few. with the national and state economy still struggling, cannabis might be one of the safest areas for investment. next to tattoo removal. that will be huge! the question is will we ever see a u.s. president take the lead on the issue and risk doing the right thing even if it means

going down in history as president spliff? our last three presidents obama bush and clinton have all been vague too honest about their usage of cannabis when they were younger. these three guys have had no problem locking people up in cages for doing the same thing they did. if these presidents really believed pot was evil, they would surrender themselves to the local authorities. if they thought it was a sin they would turn themselves in. because even if you don't like pot and we've all had that roommate, the drug war violates civil liberties and privacy right, it shows the rich get away with things the poor can't big pharma doesn't want to see pot legalized. in the era of big money privatized prisons we do need a steady flow of people sent to prison for using a flower that existed in north america long before white people ever got here. think about that the next time you're watching tv news and hear about people getting locked up for evil mood-altering drugs. before they cut the tv commercials for all of