Connect with us

Love In A Hopeless Place: My Same-Sex Wedding in Donald Trump’s America

Published

on

Here’s What It’s Like To Get Gay-Married 4 Days After A National Tragedy

My husband and I knew when we picked Nov. 12 to be married, we ran the risk of doing so in Donald Trump’s America.

An America led by a man who was met with cheers as he incited violence at his rallies, who openly mocked a disabled reporter, who boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue without losing a vote, who equated the daily lives of African-Americans and Hispanics to living in hell, who called for Muslim bans and registrations, who praised murderous, foreign dictators, who openly degraded women as he dismissed their sexual assault, and who named arguably the most anti-LGBT politician in decades as his running mate.

We knew the election would be Tuesday and our ceremony, a celebration that love had won, would follow Saturday. But surely Nov. 8 would be a day that love trumped hate and the nation said yes, we are stronger together.

It wasn’t. The nation (in reality, the Electoral College — as Hillary Clinton continues her historic lead of over 1 million in the popular vote) didn’t say that love trumped hate, and it didn’t say that we were stronger together. It said that America only used to be great, and that dark, orange days lie ahead.

Four days before our wedding, Donald Trump became the president-elect of the United States.

Like many Americans, when he was declared the victor, I was hurt. Confused. And admittedly, a little drunk. (My friends and I knew we needed to be with our community during the returns, for either celebration or comfort. As state by state flashed red, we learned it would be the latter.)

The wedding was nearly upon us, loved ones were commuting, plans were being obsessively finalized, and I was working extra hours to stockpile time off for the ceremony. I was mentally drained already and hadn’t emotionally prepared for the same country that had finally given me the right to marry to hand the keys to the White House to a demagogue.

I was never perfect, but I’d spent months trying to only disagree respectfully with those that I knew were voting Trump or for a third party, watching my tone and words. I tried to make it clear who I was supporting, and why, and had even joked on Election Day to a Trump-supporting co-worker that I was looking forward to the best woman winning. We laughed together: While I feared it, my optimism and perhaps naïve view of America told me that Trump couldn’t win.

Like many children, grandchildren, friends and co-workers, I felt betrayed by people I love and respect when I learned of his victory — by those who love and respect me, and wished nothing but the best for my marriage. I couldn’t understand how anyone I knew could vote for a man who had threatened not only my rights, but the rights of so many other minorities — who had demonized most of America, to say nothing of his treatment of women.

I freely admit that when the race was called, I lost my mind. Perhaps it was wedding stress, or the time I’d spent trying to be respectful and hoping it changed hearts, if not votes. It also could’ve been the beer.

I attacked third-party voters, and then Trump supporters. My rage overtook me: They had either enabled a xenophobic, misogynistic racist, or they were one. I criticized them all via social media, and quite blatantly. 

In my despair and against my now-husband’s wishes, I uninvited them to our wedding. Supporting Trump wasn’t supporting our marriage, and the pain was too fresh. I didn’t know these voters and I didn’t know this country.

The next morning I deleted most of the evidence I’d left behind. The damage had been done, but in my shame it was comforting. The feelings I’d expressed were genuine, but their execution appalling. The world reconfirmed that Trump was the president-elect, with three days remaining before my wedding. I was living in a nightmare and simultaneously living my dreams. It was, at best, conflicting.

If I’d ever truly believed we were a nation that was stronger together, I knew I had to apologize. I reached out to those I’d offended with my words, particularly for their extremity. I explained that we’d fought so hard for marriage equality that the notion of losing it was terrifying and rage-inducing, particularly so close to my own wedding. I asked for understanding and, if applicable, their attendance. (Most obliged, including my wonderful cousin and several dear friends.)

On our wedding day, I was too busy to think about the election, and in the crowd I didn’t see Republicans or Democrats. I didn’t see supporters of Trump or Clinton. I saw people who loved us (or at least wanted access to an open bar).

Don’t get me wrong: The orange elephant in the room was pointed out early. My husband vowed during the ceremony to support me in dark times, like a Trump presidency, and I vowed to listen to him more (citing that I’d uninvited people that cared about us over an election, despite his protests.)

When I grabbed my husband’s hand, when I put the ring on his finger, when I said “I do,” I knew that despite Trump’s divisive rhetoric and even my own in response to the election results, love had still won.

His supporters didn’t cheer less, nor did they dance less at the reception. (To be fair, the open bar may have helped that, too.) On Nov. 12, we had love and we had unity.

But every day is not Nov. 12, and our Nov. 12 was very different from the one experienced by those were understandably dejected or afraid. 

True unity is not a president-elect who appoints a white nationalist as his chief strategist. Unity is not unlawful deportation. Unity is not the countless reports of hate toward minorities across this country since his election. Unity is not a president-elect who is “fine” with same-sex marriage because it’s “settled law” — while moments later rejecting another “settled law” in Roe v. Wade.

It is not calling the immoral internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II a precedent for Muslim registration. It’s not a president-elect tapping an anti-Muslim congressman to be the CIA director, or an anti-equality senator, a man who has called civil rights groups “un-American” and received a zero on the Human Rights Campaign’s congressional scorecard, to serve as attorney general.

Nov. 12 taught me that life and love will still happen in Trump’s America, and that the support and empathy we felt from Trump supporters can still exist in this country. Their attendance meant the world to me, and I love them, but their support and empathy did not equate to action. It did not stop a Trump administration, and there’s no guarantee that love and empathy will ever equate to action as his administration comes for minority after minority.

We must remember that the majority of voting Americans rejected Donald Trump, and that everyone deserves to feel the safety, love and warmth that my husband and I felt on our wedding day. We must fight to make sure that they have it, now more than ever. I will, my husband will, and I hope you will, too.

We will have our allies, and we will welcome them with open arms, but it isn’t their responsibility to save us. When you come for one minority, you come for us all — that is the unity America must have now: the unity of the marginalized, of the minorities, unafraid to oppose xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, racism and intolerance.

Unafraid to oppose Donald Trump’s America, and unafraid to oppose Donald Trump.

 

Photo via Ted Eytan on Flickr

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Your Client Is a Criminal Defendant’: Judge Denies Trump Request to Skip Trial for SCOTUS

Published

8 hours ago

on

April 15, 2024

By

Barely hours after New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan gave Donald Trump the same set of rules requiring him to appear in court as all other criminal defendants, the ex-president’s attorney requested his client be allowed to skip trial next Thursday to attend the U.S. Supreme Court arguments on his immunity claim.

“If you do not show up there will be an arrest,” Judge Merchan had told Trump Monday at the start of his criminal trial, according to MSNBC’s Jesse Rodriguez. Trump is facing 34 felony charges for falsification of business records related to his alleged attempts to cover up hush money payments in an effort to protect his 2016 presidential campaign.

Judge Merchan had read from the same rules that apply to all defendants, but right at the end of day one of trial Trump attorney Todd Blanche made his request.

MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin reports, “after the potential jurors are gone, the fireworks start after Blanche asks Merchan to allow Trump to attend the SCOTUS argument on presidential immunity next Thursday, 4/25.”

READ MORE: ‘What Will Happen in the Situation Room?’: Trump Appearing to Sleep in Court Fuels Concerns

“The Manhattan DA’s office opposes the request, saying they have accommodated Trump enough,” MSNBC’s Katie Phang adds, citing Rubin’s reporting.

Judge Merchan “acknowledges a Supreme Court argument is a ‘big deal,’ but says that the jury’s time is a big deal too. Blanche says they don’t think they should be here at all, suggesting that the trial never should have been scheduled during campaign season.”

“That comment appeared to trigger Merchan, who asked, voice dripping with incredulity, ‘You don’t think you should be here at all?'” Rubin writes.

“He then softly asks Blanche to move along from that objection, on which he has already ruled. Merchan then got stern, ruling that Trump is not required to be at SCOTUS but is required, by law, to attend his criminal trial here.”

“Your client is a criminal defendant in New York. He is required to be here. He is not required to be in the Supreme Court. I will see him here next week,” Judge Merchan told Blanche, CBS News’ Scott MacFarlane reported.

That was not the only request Trump’s attorneys made to have their client excused from the criminal proceedings.

Lawfare managing editor Tyler McBrien reports, “Blanche says that the campaign has taken pains to schedule events on Wednesdays and asks Merchan if Trump be excused from any hearings that take place on Wednesdays, when the jury is in recess. Merchan says he will take this into consideration.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

Blanche also asked Judge Merchan to allow Trump to skip trial to attend his son Barron’s high school graduation. While the judge has yet to rule, Trump told reporters at the end of day one of trial, “it looks like the judge will not let me go to the graduation.”

The judge told Trump, “I cannot rule on those dates at this time.”

But Trump told reporters, “It looks like the judge isn’t going to allow me to escape this scam, it’s a scam trial.”

Watch below or at this link
.

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘What Will Happen in the Situation Room?’: Trump Appearing to Sleep in Court Fuels Concerns

Published

10 hours ago

on

April 15, 2024

By

Donald Trump’s apparent sleeping in court on day one of his criminal trial for alleged business fraud related to a cover-up of “hush money” election interference has critics concerned.

While initial reactions to the news largely mocked him as “Sleepy Don,” or “Drowsy Don,” political and legal experts are wondering if the 77-year old ex-president would be able to stay awake during times of crisis, when an alert president would be critical to the nation’s security.

The New York Times‘ Maggie Haberman, the longtime “Trump whisperer,” reported the ex-president “seemed alternately irritated and exhausted Monday morning,” “appeared to nod off a few times, his mouth going slack and his head drooping onto his chest.” She added the ex-president’s attorney “passed him notes for several minutes before Mr. Trump appeared to jolt awake and notice them.”

READ MORE: ‘Staged Photo Op’ of Trump With Black Chick-fil-A Patrons Was ‘True Retail Politics’ Says Fox News

Haberman followed up her Times article with a CNN appearance detailing more of what she saw. The Guardian‘s Victoria Bekiempis, MSNBC’s Katie Phang, and others also reported Trump was seen nodding off.

Critics raised concerns that question Trump’s ability to perform the duties of President.

“If Trump is too old and weak to stay awake at his own criminal trial, what do you think will happen in the Situation Room?” asked former senior advisor to President Barack Obama Dan Pfeiffer.

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch invoked Hillary Clinton’s famous “3 AM phone call” ad from the 2008 campaign, and wrote:

“2008: Which candidate can handle the 3 a.m. phone call?

2024: Which candidate can handle the 3 p.m. phone call?”

Several also noted that Clinton, the former U.S. Secretary of State, testified for 11 hours on live television before a congressional committee and did not fall asleep. Some also noted that President Joe Biden sat for a five-hour deposition with Special Consul Robert Hur and did not fall asleep.

READ MORE: ‘Not a Good Start’: Judge Slams Trump’s ‘Offensive’ Recusal Claims as a ‘Loose End’

Calling it “simply incredible,” professor of law, MSNBC/NBC News legal contributor and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance asked, “If he can’t keep his eyes open when his own liberty is at stake, why would Americans have confidence he’s capable of focus when our country’s interests require sound presidential leadership?”

MSNBC contributor Brian Tyler Cohen commented, “To be clear, ‘Sleepy Joe’ is awake and criss-crossing the country, while Trump is literally asleep at his own criminal trial.”

Former journalist Jennifer Schultz observed, “Moment of truth for all the legacy media outlets who hyped the Biden age stories. Now we have actual evidence of the other candidate falling asleep at a critical time.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Fox Personality’s Tweet Called ‘Jury Tampering’ by US Congressman

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 15, 2024

By

A Fox personality and Fox News contributor’s social media post on Monday is raising eyebrows, as one U.S. Congressman calls it “jury tampering” and a legal expert suggests it could be “conspiring to commit jury tampering.”

Clay Travis is an attorney and the founder of the conservative “sports and American culture” website Outkick, which was purchased by Fox Corporation in 2021.

His Fox News bio calls him “the founder of the fastest-growing national multimedia platform,” and, “One of the most electrifying and outspoken personalities in the industry,” who “provides his unfiltered opinion on the most compelling headlines throughout sports, culture, and politics.”

READ MORE: ‘Not a Good Start’: Judge Slams Trump’s ‘Offensive’ Recusal Claims as a ‘Loose End’

On Monday, Travis’ account on X, formerly Twitter, displayed a post that reads: “If you’re a Trump supporter in New York City who is a part of the jury pool, do everything you can to get seated on the jury and then refuse to convict as a matter of principle, dooming the case via hung jury. It’s the most patriotic thing you could possibly do.”

“Jury tampering. That’s what they do. *It’s a felony,” wrote U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) in response.

National security attorney Bradley Moss weighed in, writing, “Clay is arguably conspiring to commit jury tampering here by encouraging someone to deliberately engage in jury nullification. Not a wise move by Clay.”

Former federal and state prosecutor Ron Filipkowski, now the editor-in-chief of MediasTouch, wrote simply, “This is MAGA.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

Sirius XM host Dean Obeidallah, also an attorney, commented, “Hoping Manhattan DA is aware of this attempted jury tampering by Fox News regular Clay Travis.” He also wrote: “This is the exact type of juror tampering I knew Trumpers would engage in. Next Clay will tell Trumpers to bribe jurors or witnesses. MAGA is a cancer!”

Travis, responding to Congressman Swalwell, denied the allegation:

“This isn’t jury tampering you imbecile. I would nullify if I were seated on this jury as a matter of principle. I think all Americans with a comprehension of basic justice should do the same.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.