This is not even a coherent response.
Victoria Jackson became a fundamentalist some years ago after she achieved "has-been" status in Hollywood. Lots of people, who once had fame, seek it again in the most desperate way. Victoria Jackson is one of them. Her only fame today is that she is on the Far Right politically pushing a theocratic agenda.
What I found fascinating is that she seems to have memorized Right-wing slogans but nothing else. She has trouble formatting a coherent reply to anything, stutters a bit and then tries to throw up another slogan. She is a walking bumper sticker for the radical Right.
The woman doing the interview asks Jackson if she is homophobic, saying she was accused of this. But, again, Jackson is not homophobic. She does not fear gay men, she despises them, she calls gay couples marrying "a comedy skit" and "ridiculous." There is no fear, just disdain and insults.
Her answer: "Well, ah, I'm.... It doesn't matter what I think, what matters is what the Bible says." Okay, why? Exactly why should the rest of us worry about what she thinks the Bible says? And why are you avoiding answering what you actually think?
Jackson says she is concerned about the country because "immorality (buzz word) is, well, ah, let's see, secular humanism (buzz word) rules the airwaves (at least she didn't blame the Jews) and it's stealing innocence (buzz words) from this whole generation of children."
How is that? And what does she mean by innocence. This is the idea that sex is immoral and dirty and sinful by nature. And, well as for those gays, all fundamentalists can see with them is sex. They don't see committed relationships or love. They see lust and rampant hedonism, nothing else. They see heterosexuals disobeying their god by having immoral sex. And somehow, that one kiss steals innocence? Innocence apparently is another word for ignorance. In which case Ms. Jackson is very innocent indeed.
Jackson says her teenage daughter can't watch anything because Jackson can't find anything worth watching. (Well, I certainly wouldn't recommend any of her old skits.) But really, there are so many channels with shows that most people would consider "wholesome" this whole talking point, besides evading the question completely, is clearly false.
When the host tries to bring it back to the question and stop the rambling, Jackson calls "homophobic" a "cute little buzz word of the liberal agenda." Wow! Right after accusing a word of being a buzz word she attaches it to Right-wing buzz words like "liberal agenda." Oddly I would think she would be ranting about the "gay agenda" not the "liberal agenda."
Then she waves her Bible, which I should say appears to be one of the copies you find in a motel room, not one you buy at a bookstore. I know she's a nobody now, but surely she doesn't have to resort to lifting Bibles from motels. She says the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Okay, but so what? How does that impact law in a free society? Is she proposing we adopt a version of Christian sharia law? Should we impose the penalty for homosexuality that the Bible mentions? That would be death by stoning, just like those Muslims, whom she also hates, would do?
She then claims: "But it (the Bible) also has gossip listed in the same paragraph as an equal sin." First, no it doesn't. The Bible verses interpreted to mean homosexuality do not then mention gossip and they don't call it an equal sin.
But let us assume that Jackson is right, then precisely why do we see the Religious Right engaging in jihads against gay people and yet we've never witnessed one single campaign against gossips. They have advocated jailing gay people, not gossips. They have thrown gay people out of their churches but they don't disfellowship gossips. Gossips can be in their choirs, not gay people. Gossips can marry, not gay people. Exactly how is this an "equal" sin when we see nothing by the church to stop gossiping while they spend hundreds of millions to strip gay people of the same rights granted everyone else.
They have never treated homosexuality as an equal sin.
Jackson then goes into a rant about how liberalism is "anti-Christ" or "anti-Jesus." Odd, I know many liberals who are quite pro-Jesus.
Attempts to get her on topic fail and she then invents a new factoid that 50% of all teens have some unnamed new STD that they get from oral sex! That appears to be double the most reliable estimates among teens for all forms of STDs combined.
She says television should engage in abstinence campaigns "instead of trying to make kids gay." She says that last bit so fast and then changes the topic so quickly, it is easy to miss. According to the ditzy Jackson, television is "trying to make kids gay." How do you make someone gay? How many heterosexuals who just watched that clip of the kiss actually suddenly felt an urge to go gay on the spur of the moment? A few might find the incoherent ranting of a chubby, ditzy woman with atrocious headgear a better reason to go gay that the kiss they just witnessed. I suspect, given a Sophie's choice, many a straight man would prefer Blaine in bed than Victoria Jackson, especially if they can't get her to shut up.
Jackson then changes topics yet again, claiming the demonic liberals are "pro-Muslim and pro-gay." Really? What does that mean? Does it make you pro-paraplegic to say that paraplegics should have the same legal rights of other people? She thinks she is showing a contradiction among liberals (and libertarians I might add) because they defend the rights of both groups even though fundamentalist Muslins "kill gays," which is what her Bible says should be done. She says: "That's what's confusing to me." I bet that isn't the only thing she finds confusing. Based on her conversation she must find lots of things confusing.
I will explain it. I don't want fundamentalist Christianity to be made illegal. I don't want Christians to have lesser rights, or greater rights, than anyone else. I say the same thing for fundamentalist Muslims, even though the two groups hate each other and would deny each other rights. See, I'm not pro-Muslim, or pro-Christian. I am pro-individual rights. And liberals who defend the rights of gay people are not necessarily "pro-gay" they are pro-rights for gay people. One can even dislike gays personally and still be supportive of equality of rights. Just because I don't want Victoria Jackson taken out and stoned to death for wearing ridiculous headgear doesn't mean I'm pro-Jackson. I am not pro-Jackson at all. I think she is a mentally dense moron who doesn't have a clue about the facts of life. But I want her rights defended even if I dislike her personally.
Jackson says the only reason she can explain why liberals defend both the rights of Muslims and gays is because "Muslims hate God" and "gays hate his word." Wow! I believe that she believes it. And that sort of logic is evidence of a particularly dumb woman. I honestly don't think she is evil. She isn't intelligent enough to pull off evil.
When the host points out how Glee, which was supposed to be the topic under discussion, was going to include a Christian character in it's spirit of "inclusiveness," something that is the opposite of what Jackson was claiming, Jackson again evades the point and instead lectures about a "spiritual war" urging Christians to get out and bother others with their view on god.
And then, in the spirit of every anti-Semite I've ever met, she ends with: "I have gay friends." Hitler bitched that his own Nazi party was filled with members who each had their "special" Jew they wanted protected. Hitler himself protected the Jewish doctor who had cared for his dying mother. Really, Victoria, do you think that claiming you have gay friends somehow changes the nature of what you are doing?